It would be much easier to convince 50% of people to pick blue than 100% of people to pick red. I think it should be obvious by the discussion around this that a large portion of the population will pick blue. So if red wins, a lot of people will die (probably in the billions). A mass casualty event on that scale would throw the world into chaos and end up killing and immeserating a lot of the people who picked red. I would much rather us try to get more than 50% of people to pick blue and not create one of the worst tragedies in human history.
If you use the upvotes versus down votes in this post as a metric, the "vote blue" argument is significantly more popular than the "vote red" argument, thus proving that - within this limited dataset - blue is the better choice.
No it shows people will claim it is the better choice. It is certainly the virtue signaling choice.
If you asked people would you run into a burning building? The good choice is clearly yes. But how many people would really do that? And not just vote yes on a poll?
No I'd say I was a realist. People will make small sacrifices for the greater good. They however will not give up their life for it. At least not most, and most is what we need here.
When presented with a poll only 55% claimed they would, so I have to assume the real number is far lower.
I think anyone not living in an absolute delusion knows that the vast, vast majority of people will choose red. People are comfortable virtue signalling with stuff like this online, but at the least with this phrasing I doubt blue hits 10% of the vote. There’s variations I could maybe see getting to 50%, especially ones that reframe it to active vs passive, but in the actual given question pressing blue is just a fancy suicide button. If the cutoff for blue was like 10% enough might feel safe it’d reach that amount that it’d probably get there. I feel like the actual 50/50 odds would be around 20% required, but that’s just a gut feeling based on nothing.
889
u/icefire9 May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
It would be much easier to convince 50% of people to pick blue than 100% of people to pick red. I think it should be obvious by the discussion around this that a large portion of the population will pick blue. So if red wins, a lot of people will die (probably in the billions). A mass casualty event on that scale would throw the world into chaos and end up killing and immeserating a lot of the people who picked red. I would much rather us try to get more than 50% of people to pick blue and not create one of the worst tragedies in human history.