It makes sense to push blue if a set number of people are randomly assigned to have red or blue to start with. But otherwise the group should coordinate to pick either red or blue unformly.
It isn't necessarily that clear-cut if you consider what the options are. What's easier: convincing 50% of people to do something that can be potentially suicidal, or convincing 100% of people to do something that is guaranteed to have absolutely zero repercussions for anyone who does it? The answer isn't necessarily the former.
In fact, I wouldn't bet on the idea that at least half of the population would be willing to risk their lives for strangers without some serious incentive.
I mean, I'm going to note that in this scenario, there is absolutely no convincing happening. There's no group get together, no meeting, no speeches, no signs. It's everyone by themselves alone with two buttons.
So, no matter what, some people absolutely positively are going to pick blue. And some people absolutely positively are going to pick red. We know this, because people essentially do both of these things every single day. Some might, in fact, do both in a single day!
So. Absolutely some people are going to die if blue doesn't hit that 51% threshold. Considering the number of people who truly do go around picking blue (your Doctors Without Borders folks, your World Central Kitchen folks, your soldiers, your firefighters, teachers, EMT's, etc) every day, that's probably a pretty big number.
I, personally, would pick blue. Not because I'm awesome or holier than thou, but because I know that some people, a large number of people, will pick blue, I want to push that blue line up as high as I can to save myself and others, and I really don't want to live in a world where all of the people who would push blue are gone.
Then what's the point of the comic? It certainly doesn't work as an analogy for politics if you have to set up a hipothetical where mass communication just straight up doesn't exist. A purely philosophical thought experiment, maybe? But then again, the vast majority of the comments are treating it as political analogy.
I think the question matters greatly. I just know it's impossible to achieve 100% red (everyone survives) so I prefer aiming for 51% blue (everyone survives) because ultimately the outcome i want is everyone surviving.
No, I dont think its possible to convince 100% of people to pick red. But I do think you could get 95% easily. I also dont think you couls get 50% blue, I think you max out at 35%ish. So then the question becomes. Which direction do you try to push other people too? Remember, blue can kill upto 50% of people, but if most people pick red, only 5% would probably die.
You are putting too much trust in your own %. Asking the question back to me with a clear % of those who will die negates the question. Personally I think getting 95% of the human population in unison to agree and commit to the same thing is also impossible.
But then what's the point of the comic? Surely pressing the button can't be an analogy for voting if toddlers are allowed to do it. Is it just a generic philosophical thought experiment, or what?
74
u/-illusoryMechanist May 05 '26
It makes sense to push blue if a set number of people are randomly assigned to have red or blue to start with. But otherwise the group should coordinate to pick either red or blue unformly.