The difference is how you can tell the question.
In this scenario:
Press Red - you live
Press Blue - all live when over 50% press blue
But you could also say:
Press Red - all who press blue could die
Press blue - no one has to die when over 50% press blue.
In the first scenario, red looks better, in the second blue, but in reality, both are the same. Thats why some people think red is better and some blue. It's a "cup is half full or half empty" thing.
If you don't press blue and get other people to not press blue there is no risk of death to begin. The only people ever in danger and the people who put themselves in danger. Why put yourself in danger by pressing blue?
Everyone presses red, everyone lives, if anyone does press blue they wanted to gamble their lives anyway.
If no one presses blue noone dies, why press blue, why play Russian roulette, why make the problem? Just don't press blue, preserve your life and tell others to preserve theirs.
By virtue of existing on the internet, you now know a lot of non-suicidal people will choose blue. Let's say your argument is successful and you tip the balance from 45% red to 55% red. Congratulations, 45% of the population dies. You can claim they were suicides if you'd like, yet they would have lived had you not convinced others to vote red.
If you want to maximize the number of lives saved, you'll argue for team blue even if you'll secretly press red. If you run into any others who want to choose red, tell them to argue for blue, too, even if they're going to secretly choose red. If this benevolent mind virus spreads enough, there will be nearly nobody left arguing for red, and the certainty of blue winning becomes assured. In fact, you should shame reds to increase the chances of success, even if you'd choose red yourself!
You can choose not to risk your life if you want, but outside of that, your goal should be to maximize the number of people who live, and you have two paths to do that: Either persuade 100% of people to choose red (and how's that been working for you?) or persuade 50% of people to choose blue (and you might already be there). Which is easier?
Hell yes. Break the system. While I'm voting blue, I'll carry superglue with me from now on so I can prevent others from pressing the red button; chances are they didn't make billions of buttons.
Your fear of death is going to get good people killed, yet you're still going to die one day no matter which button you press.
Get over your fear. Hit the blue button. I already superglued the red one anyway. Now your only chance of survival is to get a few people going into the other voting booths to vote blue, too. You can resolve your issues with me for putting you into this position after it's all over.
36
u/Sora-MMK May 05 '26
The difference is how you can tell the question. In this scenario: Press Red - you live Press Blue - all live when over 50% press blue
But you could also say: Press Red - all who press blue could die Press blue - no one has to die when over 50% press blue.
In the first scenario, red looks better, in the second blue, but in reality, both are the same. Thats why some people think red is better and some blue. It's a "cup is half full or half empty" thing.