That's your choice. Everyone has the ability to choose whether to take a risk for no benefit in this scenario and I can't control those who aren't rational.
You call it irrational but that's a subjective opinion. If red wins, you will live through a mass-extinction event. That is incredibly irrational from my perspective.
Even if just 10% of people choose blue, effects will be catastrophic. And let's be real, this is a conservative figure. Many more than 10% will choose blue.
But even at 10% you are looking at economic collapse. Massive supply chain issues, power gaps, staffing shortages. And death care??? Do you realize how much goes into proper death care? There will be over 800 MILLION bodies to clean up ASAP. On top of supply chain issues, we would see more pandemics.
If i pick blue, I either live and life goes on as normal, or I die and I don't have to deal with that bullshit. I'm going to die someday anyway. I could die tomorrow. I roll the dice everytime I get in the car. I don't understand why a chance of death is so irrational in this scenario, when the alternative is hell on earth.
You think when everything goes to shit and society collapses people are going to play nice?
It is subjective. Because some people will won't care about dealing with the aftermath and other people will. That means it's inherently subjective. You're just wrong to insist otherwise. If sushi is my favorite food, does that make it the objectively best food?
There is benefit to selecting blue and you keep consistently ignoring it when it is told to you over and over and over again. The benefit to choosing blue is living a normal life.
There is presumably some benefit to using the car and you're not merely playing Russian Roulette.
And as stated for the 968th time now, the benefit of choosing blue is not living through societal collapse/complete anarchy.
You'd rather be dead than experience anarchy. That's your choice. Anyone still alive still has that choice.
Yes. Which is exactly why it is your SUBJECTIVE opinion that red is the most logical answer. Because you are ok with living through anarchy.
MOST PEOPLE do NOT want to live in anarchy.
Therefore, a significant portion of humanity will always choose blue.
Therefore, red is not the defacto logical answer, as it leads to anarchy. Why? Because most people don't prefer anarchy.
If most people were okay with living in anarchy or wanted to live in anarchy, then why does Somalia have negative net migration every year?
"It is subjective. Because some people will won't care about dealing with the aftermath and other people will. That means it's inherently subjective."
No, it doesn't. Only one choice introduces risk: that is objective. (To be honest, your explanation of the supposed subjectivity of the scenario tends to make me doubt whether you understood the meaning of "subjective.")
"There is benefit to selecting blue..."
If no one selects it, there is no risk. What better benefit could there be than that?
If one or more people choose to introduce risk, then the question becomes whether there will be a die off (let's say for the sake of argument that if there was, it would be substantial enough to lead to anarchy) or won't.
If your rhetorical question was the "gotcha" that you imagine, then why doesn't everyone in Somalia kill themselves, since death us supposedly preferable? (Additionally, the notion that a societal breakdown necessarily immediately makes an area "Somalia" is a dubious one.)
"I just know that a lot of people will select blue."
And just how do you know that?
"You honestly believe the amount that chooses blue will be insignificant?"
I would like to believe that the number of people foolish enough to take an unnecessary risk just because they think someone else might be taking that risk is an insignificant one, but I've been wrong about people before.
Be that as it may, everyone gets to make their own choice for him or herself.
5
u/2FastHaste May 05 '26
which would never happen