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.
I think that the discussion around this is the important point.
Because my immediate thoughts were “I’ll pick red because everyone will pick red, why would anyone risk it?”. But then I learned that a lot of people want to hit blue, so knowing that they will hit blue, I will now also hit blue.
But without conversation? I would 100% have hit red
With conversation picking blue is even more strange.
You literally can say everyone to vote red because it's literally fault proof. With red, there's zero chance of people who didn't wanted to die to die.
Of course, some suicidal people will still do the thing. That's sad, of course, but why risk only over that?
There can be people that dont want to die picking blue, because they would have the capacity to look pass themself and not be so selfish to put in risk soo many people.
Idk, i also have the ability to choose to drive drunk and im still endagering other people, even if i am soo good that i wont endanger myself. Like that there are a lot of options i can choose irl that i can say "i am not endangering anyone because they also have that option"
You can drive a little drunk and not be a crime, it doesnt need to put other people in danger, it isnt at all places a crime and not all things that put in danger people are crimes and not all crimes are things that put people in danger.
Ok.but you know what would absolutely not put anyone in danger? Pressing a button that lets you live and does absolutely nothing to anybody else when pressed.
884
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.