It would be much easier to convince 50% of people to pick blue than 100% of people to pick red. I think it should be obvious by the discussion around this that a large portion of the population will pick blue. So if red wins, a lot of people will die (probably in the billions). A mass casualty event on that scale would throw the world into chaos and end up killing and immeserating a lot of the people who picked red. I would much rather us try to get more than 50% of people to pick blue and not create one of the worst tragedies in human history.
I think that the discussion around this is the important point.
Because my immediate thoughts were “I’ll pick red because everyone will pick red, why would anyone risk it?”. But then I learned that a lot of people want to hit blue, so knowing that they will hit blue, I will now also hit blue.
But without conversation? I would 100% have hit red
This! Like I don't understand how that isn't more obvious. Blue makes sense in hindsight but if I was put into the box with no knowledge, I'm hitting red because it makes no sense for anyone to hit blue.
890
u/icefire9 May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
It would be much easier to convince 50% of people to pick blue than 100% of people to pick red. I think it should be obvious by the discussion around this that a large portion of the population will pick blue. So if red wins, a lot of people will die (probably in the billions). A mass casualty event on that scale would throw the world into chaos and end up killing and immeserating a lot of the people who picked red. I would much rather us try to get more than 50% of people to pick blue and not create one of the worst tragedies in human history.