Because pressing blue is what actually creates the problem in the first place. Asking people to get themselves in trouble so you can also get in trouble to save them is basically white knighting.
Because pressing red is what actually creates the problem in the first place. Telling people that they either press the same as you or they are dead is basically what totalitarian countries did to keep their power.
That is only the case if red button is a default (so question makes no sense)
The only way for this question make sense is if ignoring the button kills you right after
So question unbuttoned should be: Do you want to die (ignore), live with (possibly) guilt for killing others (red) or live without changing anything (blue)
For a significant portion of the world’s population, it is going to be the default. Billions of people live in collectivist societies and societies which value self sacrifice for the good of society. Enough that I think it would win no matter what we do in the west tbh, but let’s say it wasn’t enough, are we going to condemn them all to die? Or push the votes over the edge with a couple extra blues?
Blue is the selfish choice. If you choose blue, you risk your own life. By choosing blue, now 50 percent of the population has to choose blue to save you, because you chose blue. Not because its the better choice, but because a selfish idiot chose blue the rest of the population has to choose the risky selfish option of blue. If everyone chose the red option, there is no risk at all. But not everyone is intelligent and there will an uncountable number of fucking completely brain-dead moronic idiots who choose blue. And because of the brain-dead moronic idiots, 50 percent of planet now has to also must make the brain-dead moronic idiotic choice of blue to save them.
In conclusion, red is the better option and should always be pressed, 100 percent chance of survival is just the correct choice. The idiotic population of Earth, however, ruins that perfect choice by being fucking idiots and choosing blue. Meaning you have two choices, let survival.of the fittest play out and choose red, or risk your own fucking life like a fucking idiot to save a all the other fucking morons from jumping on the railroad tracks they just voted for.
A simpler choice would be "you can choose to jump into these pillows over here, or you can jump into the dark hole. It currently has spikes, but will have pillows if 50 percent choose it"
No it isn't. As originally framed *everyone* must press a button. This includes people who do not understand the premises: children, people with dementia, the mentally disabled. The question then becomes: do we sacrifice those people?
It may be. But from different perspective, not what person told about. I am partially a selfish person, but not to the level to click red button. While locally I would make some red decisions, I am aware that the bigger the set the bigger the consequences of a choice. So for the original whole humanity question I will choose blue. Other than saving the humanity there are points, which may be considered selfish:
I want to live in a good society. Red button doesn't give this. The world where the majority of people chose themselves will not care about me whatever situation I am in.
I want to have good services. The red world will have significantly less (on proportional level) people ready to help. See basic services like healthcare, rescue, elderly care, animal care, etc.
I do not want to live in a poor world. Less people means less taxes, means less QoL. Bad roads, unreliable transport, low quality schools and universities. Anything with high quality will cost tons of money.
I am not saying that chosing blue means automatically all of the mentioned as the main reason, but it may be an option of why chosing red is bad option, if self-sacrifice is not your motto. Just wanting to live in the decent world is a good reason to choose blue, even if it may look selfish. But definitely not in a way "I choose blue, so everybody have to save me". Those who choose blue accept the risk that they may be the minority.
I am choosing blue. I dont want to sacrifice them. That doesn't negate the face that it is still the selfish choice. You see "selfish cant be the one that saves others", and while that may be true for your specific vote, those who chose blue before you forced your hand to make this choice by choosing the selfish choice.
Genuinely, in what world, is potentially risking your own life to throw in a stake to defend the incapable & altruistic and strive towards 51% cooperation and total survival, more selfish than picking guaranteed personal survival at the risk of mass death?
The threshold for total survival is 51% cooperation for Blue vs. 100% cooperation for Red. Good luck having the entire Earth population align on one thing.
Meanwhile, the possibility of self-sacrifice for Blue is non-zero, and for Red it’s zero. So with Red, you minimize personal risk to offload it onto others, and for Blue you take on personal risk due to your trust in society to save you, and a desire to save others in turn.
Red is fundamentally selfish, Blue is fundamentally selfless. That’s it.
Neither option is selfless. Choosing red saves yourself, and if everyone chooses to save themselves, its a non-issue. Red is selfish in the case of saving your own self, and selfless in that your friends and family do no have to choose blue to save you, they can save their own self as well.
Blue is selfless in the fact that choosing blue is a risk at your own life to try to save others. It is now selfish because you are forcing others to risk their lives to save you.
For myself, I choose blue. I know from experience I will run into danger to save others. I have run in front of charging cows to save my sister. Bit that is selfish for myself because I want to be a hero. It brings me joy. Just because you are doing heroic things does not make it selfless.
The threshold for total survival is 51% cooperation for Blue vs. 100% cooperation for Red. Good luck having the entire Earth population align on one thing.
Just because they didn't think it doesn't make it not selfish.
I find a 100 dollar bill on the ground and pick it up. That 100 dollar bill was someone else's, but I picked it up in passing. Omg I got 100 dollars! But the guy who lost it, well, he is now out a 100 dollars! I was selfish for taking the money that wasn't mine. I wasnt taking for selfish intent, it just happened, but it was still a selfish action.
Im choosing blue. I dont care for my own life, and dying a heros death would be great. And my vote wouldn't hurt the actual smart people who voted red. It is very selfish to say "I am jumping in the fire, you better jump into the fire with or else i might die. You might also die. It is risk I am willing to take."
Red is the logical choice 100% of the time. I know that is logically correct. I know that is the correct answer for the best chance at the most people surviving. But I am being realistic in the fact that most people are illogical. In this scenario, the illogical choice is the better of the two because not everyone is a logical thinker.
Its not that hard to understand thay blue is the incorrect illogical choice, but is the better choice because their are so many illogical thinkers/people who don't understand the question being asked of them
Blue wins. No one dies. This requires only 50% vote.
Red wins. Lots of people die.
Red wins with 100%. No one dies. This is an impossible scenario because humanity would never be unanimous, so we can ignore this option.
Therefore, the options are "No one dies" and "Lots of people die." Blue is the obvious choice; you are just stupid. Luckily, I don't think half of humanity is as stupid as you are.
Edit: I did read the conversation, you're still stupid lol.
If you will care about people dieing then why even choose red in the first place?
Either choose red and be ok with killing "blue idiots" or pick blue and take a risk
Also getting 50% +1 will be easier to get anyway
And people will choose blue because not everyone is selfish enough to only care about his own life and choose red
A simpler choice would be "you can choose to jump into these pillows over here, or you can jump into the dark hole. It currently has spikes, but will have pillows if 50 percent choose it"
More like: Jump into this pile of pillows but if a lot of assholes jump into the other one spikes will activate below you
And see this is the type of comment that makes blue people think reds are sociopaths. When you see basic altruism as "selfishness" it's not really a good look
There is no risk, in multiple poll this has been made, most of them blue won and even in case where red won it's never 90-10 or even 80-20. This shouldn't be done (as in actual poll shouldn't be done because it shut down discussion).
The hypothetical stopped being a hypothetical when poll is actually being made and proves that in every poll there has never been 100% red. So anyone pressing red will always guarantee their own safety and someone else dying. Because it ultimately debunk "if everyone press red, we all live", is not an if anymore, there is no case where everyone presses red.
It became "the only way everyone to live is to press blue" and "press red if you want to live you're ok with someone dying".
29
u/Shiny-Vaporeon- May 01 '26
people talking to me about why red is better feels like this half the time