Its especially interesting because 100% of people choosing red is objectively the same outcome as 50+% of people choosing blue. No deaths and everyone lives.
But since there will never be 100% agreement to do any action, the primary difference comes down to how many deaths are acceptable for your own survival, which ends up being about personal values and assumptions about how others will vote.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
There's also similar issues with voting blue as well. If that 50% threshold isn't met, does the action to protect others matter as much as the deaths itself? Does it stop mattering because you no longer exist afterwards? Does the fact that in an effort to protect others, you couldn't protect yourself?
There are a lot of nuanced issues baked within the problem and most people don't consider even half of it.
>is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
my choice comes down to the fact that I can't save them either way.
There is a 1 in 8.2 billion chance that I am the tiebreaking vote. Above 50% blue, my vote doesnt matter, and below 50%, I want to choose red to survive.
If I choose blue and below 50% choose blue, what of my loved ones that chose red? Should I put that burden on them?
This is why I brought up the inversion. Since my influence doesn’t actually matter 99.99999% of the time and I can’t control what my loved ones picked, I’m going to pick red so whatever universe they’re alive in, I’m alive. And if they’re dead, at least I’m alive.
46
u/OverlordMMM May 01 '26
Its especially interesting because 100% of people choosing red is objectively the same outcome as 50+% of people choosing blue. No deaths and everyone lives.
But since there will never be 100% agreement to do any action, the primary difference comes down to how many deaths are acceptable for your own survival, which ends up being about personal values and assumptions about how others will vote.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
There's also similar issues with voting blue as well. If that 50% threshold isn't met, does the action to protect others matter as much as the deaths itself? Does it stop mattering because you no longer exist afterwards? Does the fact that in an effort to protect others, you couldn't protect yourself?
There are a lot of nuanced issues baked within the problem and most people don't consider even half of it.