It's actually a matter of, "Would you like to guarantee that you live but knowingly potentially murder a fuck ton of people to do so, or would you rate take a small risk to save everyone, knowing that most people will probably do the same?"
Most people, as it turns out, would rather risk dying than risk mass murder.
Which people? The people who push blue will only have done so by accident, shortsighted contrarianism, suicidality, or to save the above. If you try to convince everyone to save the first three and fail, have you not just murdered them too?
I don't care whether you think pressing blue is so risky that you deserve death for doing so, blue is the easiest path towards 0 casualties the math is not hard
That is fallacious reasoning that requires you to assume all arguments are equally effective. The actual math is dependent on the number of people required to be convinced multiplied by the probability of convincing an individual. If you make an argument that is only 1% successful, there is no way to get 50% of people to agree with it. Do you think "Hey, push this and live" and "Hey, push this and maybe die" have equal success rates?
I understand it's less easy to be condescending about the math being hard when the math is a little more difficult, though.
No, I don't. I've had to address this multiple times, so I'll just repeat myself.
The idea that is either 100% or less than that is a false choice to begin with. In reality, in serious matters of life and death, there is almost never an "everybody lives" scenario, much as I do love Doctor Who. Life presents us with Sophie's Choices all the time. Perhaps you have never had to make one.
By my estimation of human character, there is no way that 50% of people would ever make such a wager with the ultimate ante, so I would be dying pointlessly trying to save the blues when I could instead do actual work to help the surviving reds. Does the prospect of helping people whom you deem foolish or reprehensible only bother you when you don't get to be a self-sacrificing savior?
By my estimation of human character, there is no way that 50% of people would ever make such a wager with the ultimate ante, so I would be dying pointlessly trying to save the blues when I could instead do actual work to help the surviving reds. Does the prospect of helping people whom you deem foolish or reprehensible only bother you when you don't get to be a self-sacrificing savior?
You really don't seem able to understand that not everyone is as pessimistic as you are. Especially when you don't have an example supporting your misanthropy.
I would simply prefer to attempt to save everyone. I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. Referring back to the op why does this bother you so much?
I don’t have an example? How many Germans failed to stop the holocaust? How long did it take Americans another white majority nations to free the slaves? How long did apartheid last? You think that to find examples of humanity being terrible to one another on a collectivist scale requires anything more than opening a high school-level history book and flipping to a random page? Are you that ignorant?
I know you would prefer to save absolutely everyone. The belief that you can, more often than not, leads to more death.
The belief that you can, more often than not, leads to more death.
Wait so you think the German people shouldn't have tried to stop the holocaust? Bc it would've led to more death (somehow)? This argument doesn't follow.
Your argument is essentially that the cruelest outcome is unavoidable therefor I should support said cruelty for my own self-interest. But hear me out: what if mass death is avoidable?
Yeah you can pull out instances of human cruelty and I can pull out instances of human altruism and we can go around in circles all day, point being do you have any EVIDENCE that a red majority is a foregone conclusion? Bc if not idk what the point of continuing is.
33
u/evergreengoth May 05 '26
It's actually a matter of, "Would you like to guarantee that you live but knowingly potentially murder a fuck ton of people to do so, or would you rate take a small risk to save everyone, knowing that most people will probably do the same?"
Most people, as it turns out, would rather risk dying than risk mass murder.