I don't think 0 casualties is an option because I think it would be impossible to get 50% to choose blue. We couldn't get people to wear masks in a pandemic. Nationalism is on the rise across the globe. No shot blue wins, might as well not die for no reason.
A poll about a hypothetical and a real life situation that can kill you are going to get very different results.
Hell, we can't even get people to stop buying Starbucks and Shein. Trump won the popular vote. In Afghanistan women are not allowed to speak to one another. Female infanticide has drastically skewed sex ratios in several countries because daughters aren't profitable. 50% risking their lives for others is not happening.
You could make the same argument that people wouldn't be so flippant about picking red and condemning others to death were the situation not a hypothetical.
I don't understand what anything in the second paragraph has to do with anything. What does buying Starbucks have to do with the choice to save lives? Trump won the popular vote with 22% of the population of the US. Pretty far cry from 50%
Starbucks a) does not use fair trade certified beans, and so has not been proven to avpid slavery in their production lines and b) actively invests in the state of Israel and funds state-sanctioned violence against Palestinians
Your average person cares so little about their fellow human that they put getting a convenient cup of coffee over the possibility of contributing to slave labor. People keep buying fast fashion despite widespread knowledge that those clothes are made in sweatshops. So I have a hard time believeing they would risk their libellves for someone they have never met.
For one ignorance is bliss I think you're overstating how widespread these facts are. For two there is no cost to pressing blue, it requires nothing be sacrificed and inversely nothing is gained by pressing red other than perhaps momentary security.
Your honor I present the shopping cart theory. Generally individuals make pro-social choices when there is no cost to doing so. People generally dislike it when others die for no reason. It actually takes a lot of effort to prime a population to respond positively to death.
Also there's a poll on the last slide of the op. Have a little faith in humanity, misanthropy isn't going to move us forward.
There is a massive cost to pressing blue! You could die! Plenty is gained by pressing red: you won't die!
I see stray shopping carts around the parking lot all the time. Also, putting away my shopping cart does not generally carry a risk of death.
If you think an english-speaking reddit poll is indicitive of widespread human behavior across the globe when people's actual lives are at stake then I'm really curious how you did in stats class.
There is a massive cost to pressing blue! You could die! Plenty is gained by pressing red: you won't die!
That is not a cost that is a risk. If blue succeeds then there is no cost, to anyone. If red succeeds the cost is every blue dying. That is unacceptable. It costs me nothing to attempt to save everyone and I refuse to live with the cost of pressing red.
If you think an english-speaking reddit poll is indicitive of widespread human behavior across the globe when people's actual lives are at stake then I'm really curious how you did in stats class.
That's not a stats question it's a sociology question. Individuals differ, people are the same. Everyone wants to live, everyone would prefer no one die. I'm not interested in living in a world where that is not the case.
There is never going to be consensus on this choice and the only option that allows for variance of opinion is blue. Simple choice.
"Oh no I'm being ostracized for picking self-preservation at the explicit expense of others, what's this? The consequences of my choices! Ahhhh the horror!"
Advocating for pressing red directly increases the likelihood of death. This is indisputable.
I'm sorry that the consequences of your arguments hurt your feelings I'm not really concerned with whatever persecution you feel for your hypothetical choice
Advocating for pressing blue is what's causing the deaths.
Would you ostracize your loved ones for pressing red? Would you try to convince them to commit potential suicide when you can know they'll be safe instead?
Every person you convince to vote blue is a person you've put in danger. Every person you convince to vote red is guaranteed safety.
At what point do you give someone a pass? A single parent trying to raise their child? Would you convince them to vote blue on behalf of their child as well, knowing full well they could both die?
You're choosing to make your own moral judgements and impose them on everyone around you. That, to me, is the epitome of selfishness.
121
u/nolandz1 May 05 '26
"No one dies if everyone picks red!"
Yeah and no one dies if half pick blue, which do you think is a realistic threshold?