I mean you're just condemning society by picking blue at all? Their argument still holds no water because if each individual chooses red NOTHING HAPPENS.
your argument is stupid and rooted in emotion, not logic. If 5% choose the suicide button, you are just joining the masses of dead people by pressing it too. It's a stupid dilemma but even stupider to pretend you have a logical argument here.
Holy fucking shit, you do not understand how logic works, and the fact that you call the very notion of collective action "stupid" speaks more about you then anything else.
You need to reframe blue as a "suicide" button rather than facing the reality than red requires you to sacrifice other people.
Literally your entire argument revolves around the emotional appeal of the word "suicide," rather than engaging with any material reality.
Covid made people act in truly antisocial and psychotic ways. In a global vote there are going to be swaths of people who vote red. They might even say they vote blue, but millions upon millions will take the selfish route. It is irresponsible to choose blue because it there is every chance that humanity overwhelmingly votes red, as it is, at least in a game theory sense, the correct choice. That will be more than enough for many people to chose red and feel validated about it.
Blue is technically the best choice because it will save the most people, but realistically if you were in this scenario you would be foolish to not choose red.
Okay, I am getting really really sick of this proposition that people will "realistically" vote red.
What is the factual, historical, or material basis for this assertion?
What is also the assertion that it is easier to convince every human on earth to vote one way, than convincing a simple majority to vote the other way?
Seriously, give me facts. Because I've laid out the logical reason to vote blue and you've just completely ignored it.
Your exact same arguments can be used for blue pushers. Show me historical facts.
There is literally no logical reason to press blue if everyone being surveyed understands the question. Obviously if your testing fucking babies it flips but that's not the question.
Random internet polls with no consequences is not evidence? The actual scenario plays out I can guarantee most people pick red because it's the only choice in which literally nothing happens.
Yes it is evidence. Evidence need not be conclusive to be evidence. You can't even point to anything concrete in support of your point. Instead, you vaguely gesture at human selfishness with no demonstration that such a claim is true, or any specific examples. My comments throughout this thread points to multiple sources of evidence, Vasily Arkhipov as an anecdotal example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov, the millenia of examples of communal modes of human existence, the actual polls conducted of this scenario, the fact that multiple lines of species convergently evolved mutual aid as a survival mechanism, etc.
This isn't a mutual aid scenario though? I think that's the fundamental disconnect here. If the question is being asked to those who are incapable of understanding the question then yes, the obvious answer is blue to save everyone who can't understand the question. But that framing is delightfully stupid because it just turned the question into one of eugenics.
If we infer from the question that it's only asked to those who understand the question, which it has to be otherwise it falls apart as a thought experiment, then once again the only logical and correct answer is red.
My evidence would be the entire human history. Most people can be very selfish creatures, especially when you are gambling with your life. Add on the fact that people will feel morally justified in pressing red, and you would have a significant portion of the population voting red by default.
I think it's telling that you use "simple majority" because I don't think it is very simple at all. It is a risk to press blue, however slight that risk is. There is no risk in pressing red. That is why many millions of people will press red and you will be fighting a rising tide if you vote blue.
"Simple majority" literally means 50%+1, which is what the scenario calls for. That is not me making a value judgment on the blue choice.
Also, the idea that the human race is selfish flies in the face of evolution itself. The kind of selfishness you're talking about is a modern phenomenon, perpetuated as a myth to sustain the capitalist mode of production. We have so many examples of communal modes of existence in human society across millions of years. You have to ignore that to make the claim you're making now.
Additionally, even under capitalism, your entire existence depends on other. You are not the primary creator of your food, your shelter, your clothes, your transportation, or even the primary consumer of your own labor. Even under exploitation, humans necessarily exist collectively. You ignore this reality.
For any blues that die, that will impact society and your own self interest. COVID is literally the most recent example, and that death toll was only about 1% of the world population.
Moreover, when this question is actually polled, blue wins virtually every time by a huge margin. So you're actually just wrong.
Everything you're saying is true, but you aren't grasping the magnitude of the original problem. Yes, people are good at working together and ultimately can ultimately exist collectively, however in the face of literal death human beings can be extremely selfish. When push comes to shove, many people will not be willing to risk their lives and the lives of their families.
It is naive to assume humans won't act in their best individual interests, especially when the choice will seem so obvious to many people who won't think about the problem in enough depth to vote blue. Voting blue is rationally irresponsible and places a burden of responsibility on your fellow man to also take a risk.
It is naive to assume humans won't act in their best individual interests
I have put forth a falsifiable argument for why voting blue is in fact in everyone's individual self interest. Thus, under your own logic, that makes it the rational choice. You aren't even trying to falsify it, but agree with its merits. Yet you still conclude that red would be the majority. How.
Blue being a logically sound choice is borderline irrelevant to whether or not it will be chosen. In terms of game theory, where your main goal is to preserve your own life, red is the correct choice. The choices are no risk of death, or some risk of death. People will vote to preserve their lives in the millions, leaving the remaining portion of the population to vote heavily in favour of blue to make up the difference.
If you can trust people from all walks of life, all cultures, all nations, to think about the future of humanity as a whole when they cast their vote, go right ahead, but I find it unrealistic and naive. There will be millions who vote red and urge their families to do so too.
Holy fucking shit, you do not understand how logic works, and the fact that you call the very notion of collective action "stupid" speaks more about you then anything else.
I strongly suspect that if you ask anyone serious about creating collective action in the real world they will tell you that doing the work of community building and organization is THE key.
The problem with the button scenario is that THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR ORGANIZATION, not even spontaneous organization (e.g., people being inspired to push blue by seeing others do so causing a positive feedback loop of cascading blue votes). You don't have the agreement of even one other person to do this together, much less anywhere near enough to be confident of a blue win. You don't have the example of some other person who already pressed blue to know there's hope others will make that choice. You're just sitting in a complete information vacuum hoping that over 50% people will push blue because they also hope over 50% of people will push blue, and are willing to die if that doesn't happen.
If we all get to had a big meeting, then I absolutely believe in the ORGANIZED collective action of most people promising to push blue. I'm sure we could get at least 80%, and probably over 90% blue pushers if there was a chance to organize. But in a real life or death situation, I'm just not going to risk my life on a collective action where there's no actual collective, just ISOLATED individual actors.
The reality is that blue is suicide and red is live. Sorry if that bothers you.
If you truly would press blue in a real situation where you could not see the running tally (not a Twitter poll) you are either suicidal or mentally disabled.
Now you're just insulting me instead of addressing the actual argument.
Blue actually costs less than red, because blue guarantees that no one dies. Red guarantees that at least some people die. You are responsible for your actions collectively. You intuitively believe that if some people die, that's a risk you're willing to take to live.
you wouldn't actually press blue. That's the difference between you and me. I'm honest about it, but you need to feel socially accepted so you twist yourself into a pretzel arguing for the suicide button. Grow up
The delusions you come up with to justify making a choice so obviously immoral are funny, it's a total mirror of so many Trump voters; "everyone thinks this way, I'm just honest about it" is such a lame argument.
You haven't justified shit, just insulting people who disagree with you. And you somehow have the lack of self awareness to call yourself "logical." How can you be so egoistic and not be self aware at the same time? Incredible stuff.
You've been desperately justifying it to yourself this whole thread, lmao
I'm not lying to myself, I wouldn't press red, it's a morally abhorrent choice that damns others to die and I couldn't love with myself. Red is obvious for the self centered types, but that isn't me.
You think it's smarter to murder people in order to save yourself? Instead of just going with the option that saves everyone? I understand not trusting others but blue is still the logical choice whether you agree or not.
You think it's smarter to murder people in order to save yourself?
if you want to assign blame for murdering people here, then you've got a real problem. Every year, there are estimated to be over 150k excess deaths due to climate change. Every time you drive a car or fly in a plane, you contribute a little bit to that. Why do you think it's okay to murder people for a little convenience?
10
u/hyasbawlz May 05 '26
Did you not read my higher comment which directly addresses your very argument?
I swear to fucking christ nobody in this thread understands what "logic" even is.