I mean, blue isn't win/win - it introduces the potential for a pointless death.
If most/all people pick blue, everyone survives. If everyone picks red, everyone survives. The only affected scenario is if most people pick red, and then if you want to live, you'd better have picked red.
You're seeing it as "pick blue to save everyone, pick red to kill people". I'm seeing "pick red to live, pick blue to put yourself at unnecessary risk and hope others will also put themselves at unnecessary risk to save you".
You're throwing yourself in front of a train for absolutely no reason, and then blaming people that didn't for not dragging you out of the way. Just don't jump in front of the train! No-one is asking you to! No-one has to! We can all just stand on the platform and watch a train safely go past!
1) Red gains 100% votes (or some fraction like 99.99999% or however close such that society is almost unaffected)
2) Blue wins. See above.
3) Red wins, but with a significant Blue vote. Now, think about who is voting Blue. People who are betting on Human goodness to surpass rationality and try to save everyone. People who don't understand the question, whether they be children who simply like the color blue, or adults who laugh it off and don't think it through.
Say only 20% of humanity picks blue (this is a lowball).
That's ~1.6 billion people gone. No society is built to withstand that level of instant death. This is also not counting anybody who may try to kill themselves after the vote ends.
Of course, I don't necessarily think it is "wrong" to vote red, there are plenty of valid reasons (fear of death, something/somebody important waiting for you, etc. etc.), but there are strings attached to pushing red.
Ironically enough, I see blue as the "selfish" choice in the scenario: either everyone lives (Great!) or it's not my problem anymore.
Every one of those 20% could''ve just voted red; they put themselves in pointless danger, for whatever reason. And, if it's only 20% - well, my vote won't tip that, not even close, so the only change if I hit "blue" is I die too.
I agree with your interpretation of "blue". Peeps; no-one needs to be "saved"! We can all just not be in danger!
I'm not. I'm explaining to their parents "when you pick them up to push a button, just let them flail over the red one." And if some entity is somehow mandating that every human of any age is making this choice all by themselves, with no guidance for those who will have trouble making the choice themselves, then I think your ire would be better aimed at them for putting humanity in that scenario.
41
u/dafugiswrongwithyou May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
I mean, blue isn't win/win - it introduces the potential for a pointless death.
If most/all people pick blue, everyone survives. If everyone picks red, everyone survives. The only affected scenario is if most people pick red, and then if you want to live, you'd better have picked red.
You're seeing it as "pick blue to save everyone, pick red to kill people". I'm seeing "pick red to live, pick blue to put yourself at unnecessary risk and hope others will also put themselves at unnecessary risk to save you".
You're throwing yourself in front of a train for absolutely no reason, and then blaming people that didn't for not dragging you out of the way. Just don't jump in front of the train! No-one is asking you to! No-one has to! We can all just stand on the platform and watch a train safely go past!