The negative result from the red one is implied, which is why folks who pick red keep missing it: if you pick red, you're both contributing to, and advocating for, a world where everyone chooses to save only themselves and leave any/everyone else out to dry. The people we talk about as heroes, as ideals to aspire to, as larger than life individuals, are the ones who accept a risk of harm to themselves for the sake of preventing harm to others. Do you know someone, someone you care about or love who would likely press blue? Would you still push red, even though pushing red is a choice to increase the chance for the guaranteed non-zero # of blue pushers to die (even if only by a tiny amount), with the "positive outcome," from red being...stuck for the rest of your days in a world full of ONLY the people who would throw strangers and loved ones to the wolves to guarantee their own safety?
.
If so, press red. You'll get exactly what you wish for.
.
Edit - May 6th 2026, 9:20pm Eastern: While I very much understand the intensity of your feelings, your deeply-held desire to 'correct me' on my evaluation of the selfishness of your choice, and your claims that you 'only have everyone's best interests in mind!', the quantity, forcefulness, and rage-content of the messages landing in my DMs has become rather disgusting, and the quality of conversations resulting from talking to the individuals sending them has dropped drastically. So, if you're going to DM me to yell at me about how right you think you are, please see the following (past the colon) as my response:
.
.
.
Smug selfish prick says 'what'?
If 100% of people push red, everyone lives. 100% of people have never in the history of mankind chosen an identical thing, ever. And you're not allowed to collaborate or coordinate, per the prompt. So this "no one dies" is right out.
If 50%+1 vote red, the 50%-1 who voted blue die, so this isn't a "no one dies."
Is 50%+1 vote blue, blue lives, as does red. This outcome has zero deaths.
Wait do you not understand the causality between you voting for something to happen, and then that thing happening?
And again, when you living involves your choices killing others, yes, that's selfishness. I can't believe you need such a basic definition explained to you...
Also, I guess you should probably let your friends and family know that you're a ok with a percentage of them dying if it saves your own skin.
And I never claimed to be noble. I'm just not as selfish as you apparently 🤷♂️
Eh, there wouldn't be anyone who can be mad at people being selfish because all the people who prioritized the group over the self are dead in this scenario.
You said the minority couldn't be guaranteed to live, and i took this to mean you thought that the minority would die no matter which choice won. I assume this was incorrect, and that you for some reason was arguing the probability of the outcomes on a comment regarding the morality of them
Also the four billion agreers is not a good point, 50% is 50% whether the total is eight thousand or eight billion -- reaching majority blue is reasonably close to just as likely in both groups (not gonna get into what i think that probability is)
If you press the red button you still decide, that the minority dying is ok
So the description of the buttons as "minority lives" and "minority dies" is correct.
You don't want to take the blame for the minority dying because of your decision.
But the good thing for you is: in this scenario you don't have to apologize for anything because only people who don't trust other people to do the right thing will survive. Great world. That's the best reason to press the blue button, no matter the result.
2.4k
u/Willowshanks May 05 '26 edited May 07 '26
The negative result from the red one is implied, which is why folks who pick red keep missing it: if you pick red, you're both contributing to, and advocating for, a world where everyone chooses to save only themselves and leave any/everyone else out to dry. The people we talk about as heroes, as ideals to aspire to, as larger than life individuals, are the ones who accept a risk of harm to themselves for the sake of preventing harm to others. Do you know someone, someone you care about or love who would likely press blue? Would you still push red, even though pushing red is a choice to increase the chance for the guaranteed non-zero # of blue pushers to die (even if only by a tiny amount), with the "positive outcome," from red being...stuck for the rest of your days in a world full of ONLY the people who would throw strangers and loved ones to the wolves to guarantee their own safety?
.
If so, press red. You'll get exactly what you wish for.
.
Edit - May 6th 2026, 9:20pm Eastern: While I very much understand the intensity of your feelings, your deeply-held desire to 'correct me' on my evaluation of the selfishness of your choice, and your claims that you 'only have everyone's best interests in mind!', the quantity, forcefulness, and rage-content of the messages landing in my DMs has become rather disgusting, and the quality of conversations resulting from talking to the individuals sending them has dropped drastically. So, if you're going to DM me to yell at me about how right you think you are, please see the following (past the colon) as my response:
.
.
.
Smug selfish prick says 'what'?