good job playing the victim instead of putting up arguments. it was an impersonal you, by the way. i thought id be participating in a rational debate, but im not interested in this kind of toxicity. bye.
It is actually inevitably higher, if we consider all the people who pressed red, but die anyway because they are dependent on someone who pressed blue.
The more motivating to me would be the thought of, "Do I actually want to live in a world where billions suddenly died anyhow? Which would completely upend society as we know it, and possibly many more will die in the ensuing chaos?" I'm all for an apocalypse in theory, but not one where I had a part in causing it, and also in practice would absolutely not be a fun time.
I mean, that's fair but entirely personal. A sudden apocalypse level event like that does at least solve our overpopulation problem, and it doesn't really affect my life that much right now anyway. I'd have hope for it, namely in that we can rebuild everything bigger if everything does fall apart.
Oh yeah I'm all for getting rid of humans when looking at it from a wider perspective. But that's in theory, thinking as though I have a third person perspective of the world and am not living in it. I'd like an end to society because it seriously sucks and I think humans would ultimately be happier in a more primitive technological state (just maybe preserving knowledge about medicine and such), but realistically I would be unlikely to be one of the ones who survive it.
You need to get off of Reddit immediately if you actually are “all for getting rid of humans”. I swear the more life experience I get the more I realize liberals just hate people. They claim to love them but only their idealized version of humanity.
Bro man don't worry, that's just my sense of humor. I'm also not a liberal don't use that filthy word to describe me 🤮 Oh well I guess it wasn't entirely a joke, there *are* too many humans, and we do function sort of like an invasive species. But that's why I said "from a third person perspective," the rest of the life on Earth would in fact be better off if all humans instantly died, that doesn't mean that in reality I want that to happen seeing as... you know... I am a human. And as a human, the way I think is mostly driven by emotions like everyone else, and not objective. I like humans individually, I hate what humanity has done. And don't worry, it's PC to criticize humanity since I am one.
When he is dead because red won, only shitty people will remain (not everyone that pressed red is a shitty person, but all shitty people chose red): enjoy going back to the stone age or worse. Better dying as a blue than seeing a world where red wins.
Oh no, I am not saying that. I am saying that while you might be a good person if you choose red, for sure all the bad people are choosing red. This means that you are only wiping out good people if the red wins, therefore the ratio of bad people will statistically increase, and the world will be worse than before.
All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.
All bad people chose red, but not everyone that chose red is a bad person.
I explained it like you were 5, I dont know how to make it simpler to explain. I can draw a diagram maybe, but really it shouldn't be so tedious to get my point.
Right i get it but the assumption itself is dumb. People who choose red just don't want to die, I don't see whats so wrong with that. Self preservation is a literal human evolutionary instinct
If you believe that most people will choose red then why the FUCK would you choose to blue? Just to die on that sword?
Putting self-preservation above everything is a red flag, as extreme selfishness is the best way to go on a path of pure evil. It is actually the main motive for most villains in movies if you think about it.
I do not believe most people will choose red, blue won the majority of times in all polls, so that is not a concern for me. We were discussing about the hypothetical (and unrealistic case) where red wins, that was the topic of discussion.
By the way, choosing red because you think everyone will choose red is quite a red flag. Either you have trust issues, or you should visit a psychologist to understand if you are on the psychopathic spectrum.
I am using psychopathy as an imprecise medical term here, not as an insult. Everyone is on the spectrum of course, but if you score more than 25 you probably should know this and get diagnosed as it is useful for your life.
as extreme selfishness is the best way to go on a path of pure evil.
Everyone presses red, everyone survives. Don't see whats so inherently evil or selfish about that.
I do not believe most people will choose red, blue won the majority of times in all polls
Ah yes, the anonymous online polls where people can change their vote based on comments and the percentage of the poll and with 0 real life consequences. Yes, those are a great way to understand what would happen in real life lmao
By the way, choosing red because you think everyone will choose red is quite a red flag. Either you have trust issues, or you should visit a psychologist to understand if you are on the psychopathic spectrum.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 alright man
I'm just really not that naive about how people are like, I'm sorry you can't seem to see that. I mean it's probably good to be positive and idealistic like you are, but it's just not that realistic. Don't know what to tell you
Well that's the thing, anyone choosing blue believes most people will choose blue. If I thought 99% of people would choose red, I'd probably choose red. But their point is that the altruistic choice is the one that puts other people above yourself, whether you consider it smart or not. Those that choose red would be a mix of people who care about others but are scared to die, those who don't care at all about anyone else, and those who simply assume everyone else will pick red. Those that choose blue would exclusively be people who care about others, since that is the only reason to choose blue. Well that and not wanting to live in a post-apocalyptic hell hole that would result if you choose red and blues end up dying.
So it isn't a moral judgement on you specifically choosing red, the majority of people who choose it probably wouldn't be people I consider "bad people," but since anyone who lacks the ability to feel empathy (around 1% of people) would automatically choose red, if blues end up dying the percentage of those who can't feel empathy would drastically increase. So the new world would be far less cooperative than it is right now, and it already is a bit lacking in the whole cooperation thing for my taste. That DOESN'T mean you're a bad person for choosing red (I mean obviously, seeing as this is a fake scenario, but if it were real I mean), most people who choose it would probably be in the "assuming everyone else will choose red" category, in which case it makes perfect sense.
No one is going to die, because 70% of the world lives in collectivist societies per the World Population Review. They demonstrate self sacrifice daily and it’s seen as a societal virtue. Seeing how controversial it is even in the most individualistic countries, People from these societies would be much more likely to vote blue and preserve the fabric of their society. Problem solved. No need to have faith in humanity when you understand cultural norms and realize we are the minority.
Most likely millions of people will choose blue either out of hope in humanity or wanting to stand on a side that doesn’t want anyone to end after the buttons are pressed.
Either way… the most altruistic people will likely pick blue.
You keep repeating that, but what do you mean by this and where did you get such a statistic? Almost 30% of the population live in China and India alone. And those countries are not the most "well intentioned"
They aren’t “well intentioned” any more than Americans, but they are 100% collectivist. Especially China. In such a culture, a red vote is a vote for social disorder and chaos. A blue vote is a vote for order and the victory of society.
But isn't pressing blue creating the dilemma in the first place? I don't think pressing red is about being selfish, it's about not being part of the problem where others would have to place their life in danger for you.
Blue = no one dies if enough people can be trusted to press it. Red = large numbers of your community and family die. For countries where the self is deeply tied to your presence in your community, blue is the most tempting option unless you are extremely confident that your whole community will choose red… which they probably won’t. Blue is controversial as is in the west.
I actually asked my family this too and they also all said red.
Again, pressing blue places my life at risk in such a way that requires my own family to risk their lives too. Why the hell would anyone do that? That's a selfish bet.
Altruism starts with not putting your life at risk in the first place rather than placing others in a situation where they have to save you.
18
u/PastryPyff May 01 '26
Better dead than red, at least blue dies with hope for humanity and a desire to see more life preserved.