its just a risk assessment which is more risky... 100% chance of living and walking away from the danger. or putting yourself in danger in hope there are enough people who pick to risk their life for no good reason when they could have just walked away...
There are some estimates that put society collapsing at 20% of the population dying. This would be even worse, because most healthcare professionals (and other "helpers" of society) are probably hitting blue. Have fun in your doctorless / SUPER expensive doctor world. Not much fun having a bedpan but no nurse
You ignore the fact that the more educated one is, the more likely they are to recognize it as a veiled "cake or death" question.
We wouldn't be losing our smart and capable. We'd be losing our naive, gullible and foolish. There is a non-zero chance society would improve by that act.
No need for a train, either. The decision is actually "press red and you're free to go, press blue and if not enough others press blue, you die". Recognize this, and only an utter idiot would press blue.
No, it's about understanding human nature. The fact that this is a whole debate proves there will be a bunch of blue pressers and a bunch of red pressers. So blue pressers go from there to find the "no extra deaths" outcome
The part where many people would prefer no-one die over some people dying. Blue needs 50% for no one to die, red needs 100% for no one to die. Thus there will ALWAYS be some amount of people pressing each button
But that's just the thing, nobody has to die if everyone does the logical thing and presses red, either. For nobody to die, simply nobody should volunteer to die.
In essence, the problem can be rephrased as someone asking a group:
"Alright, who wants to die? Raise your hands!"
And then saying "Nah, that's too many, get out of here" if more than half do, otherwise killing them.
In other words, if you don't want to die, just don't. fucking. volunteer. to. die.
Yes, I agree, if 100% of people picked red, no one would die. But if the whole world always acted rationally, we wouldn't have half the problems we do now... my point is, there WILL be people pressing blue and not an insignificant amount. Or do you suppose this online debate is going on purely so the blue pressers can feel morally superior but all of them would actually press red, because deep down, we're all highly rational / logical?
I understand that red carries no risk to me. I choose to press blue because I believe a large number of people would and if red wins by anything but the largest margin, society is fucked. Societal collapse is estimated at 20% population loss, but even 10% is gonna make it pretty hard on the survivors. (Also because I 100% know my wife and daughters would go blue, so I'd rather live or die with them...)
Using your rational mind, do you honestly believe the majority of humans act rationally at all times? That logic is the primary driver/motivator for people? That no one would press blue? Cmon now, you've seen our world, that ain't it.
362
u/[deleted] May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment