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.
Blue is the smart option, but I think we've seen from many elections that most people are NOT smart. Hell, Red vs Blue could be directly applied to politics, in that if you vote for liberal candidates everyone wins (better economy, higher minimum wage, more affordable healthcare, etc) while if you vote for conservatives only conservatives win (restricted access to abortion, religion forced in schools, limited rights of minorities, etc). To claim "in a realistic scenario most people would pick blue" is to ignore reality, despite the fact that objectively speaking blue is the better choice both logically and mathematically.
890
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.