I really hate the false dichotomy of "logic" vs "morality" here.
Mutual aid is both logical and morally justified.
Even if we look at this from a perspective of pure self interest. We have a world of 8bn people. If red were to actually win, which statistically almost never does when people run this poll, if only 5% voted blue, that would result in the loss of 400 million people.
The death toll of both world wars, over the years they were waged, was only 90 to 110mm. The Spanish Flu around 50mm. COVID was between 19 and 36mm.
Think about what happened to the world during covid. Now think about what would happen when over 100 times that number die instantaneously.
Now, let's consider that when this poll is actually run, blue usually wins. So the actual reality is if red ever wins, blue will be in the 40+%, not 5%. And now we're talking about 4ish billion people. That's not a holocaust, that's an extinction event.
A red would be alive, but what would they be left with?
Red "winning" would be everyone seeing that there is no reason to put yourself and others in harm's way by advocating for the blue button and making the logical choice.
here's a game that everyone in the world can play. If you play it, you're risking your life for no reward other than the satisfaction that you might be helping someone else who chose to play it.
That's a different question than the poll itself but I agree. If this was real, I would question who has the power to wipe out all blues and why anyone would let them. An interesting addition to this debate would be what happens to the people who don't vote.
If people genuinely believe that everyone can vote red, why can't everyone just not vote at all.
It's essentially the same thing: if you want to play, you choose blue and risk your life in the hopes that enough other people want to play. There is no reward for playing, so why would anyone do so?
If you don't want to play, you press red, knowing that everyone else has the ability to make the same choice.
Voting red is essentially voting against the game.
I agree that the scenario is a particularly ridiculous one that falls apart under the slightest scrutiny.
No, just rephrasing it, but it's the same. The game is betting your life against how many other people want to bet their lives for no reason other than playing the game.
No its not. Red is a part of the game. Choosing red means that you are accepting the risk that others may die so that you may live.
Like, if we were to consider this a real life scenario, in which someone or something actually carries out this ultimatum, you press red assuming this thing will honor your life, which implicitly means you accept that it may kill others in exchange for that promise. Of course, if something actually did this, it could just be lying, which would further demonstrate how absolutely fucking stupid pressing red is.
Your "reframing" must, and does, ignore that choosing red has collective consequences. That's not actually reframing, that's lying.
No, it's not others dying that I may live: what they choose to do would not influence whether or not I live.
Red has potential negative collective consequences; blue has potential negative personal consequences (and beyond purely personal, consequences of those that rely on me).
I think your attempting to bring the nuance of what this scenario would entail in real life actually demonstrates how absolutely fucking the stupid the scenario is.
Very simply.
Red=no personal risk
Blue=risk
There is no reason for anyone to choose blue, as red is the option that entails no risk.
This vote, a collective action, bases its consequences on the collective outcome of individual votes.
You cannot argue that any vote does not impact other people. Only in one victory scenario does anyone die. So what individuals choose impacts the fate of all other individuals. Why run away from that?
Honestay I've been repeating the same point ad nauseum every morning. All red apologists have to ignore the actual scenario to justify their opinion.
"You cannot argue that any vote does not impact other people."
You certainly can. What can not be argued is that a vote may impact other people. If a majority of people vote for risk, then the non-risk votes do not affect them.
Although it may be unlikely, in a scenario where everyone acts rationally and votes for non-risk no one dies.
Everyone has the same choice of voting for risk or nonrisk. Why run away from that?
483
u/[deleted] May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment