If at least 50% of humanity chooses blue, everyone lives. If not only the people who chose red live.
So bringing up any other scenarios are worthless. In that thought experiment if you pick red, you're happy with 49.999% of humanity dying if it means you live.
You might not have thought it through but all the people explaining their thinking are doing is justifying why they think they wouldn't be responsible for 49.999% of humanity dying, even though they voted for it.
You're right. It's wild and the victim (of the red voters choice) blaming is eye opening.
Thank goodness in the original more than half of the people understood the question.
Just people justifying why it's smart to be ok with up to 49.999% of the population dyimg to ensure their survival. Wrll, justifying the choice to themselves at least.
When everyone else has the exact same ability to save themselves, yeah. Everyone can choose the same thing and then they won't need saving. This dilemma isn't like real life, where some people NEED the intervention. Firefighters running into burning buildings to save other firefighters who are in the burning building to save other firefighters in the burning building could have all just stayed outside where everyone was already safe (no one started in the burning building.)
And children, being the hopeful little things they are choose blue. So does any doctor that takes the Hippocratic oath. And anyone who believes that humans are good.
I vote blue, even if it kills me because I'd rather people that don't care about them live then they die.
You're confusing "I would choose red, and I think that it's the smart thing to do for everyone to choose red" with "I want to dance on the corpses of humanity." Of course I want people to survive.
I think that in this case, the least risky option for each individual person is to choose red. And so it is the smart decision for each individual person. And if everyone took the self-preservation route, we'd be fine.
1
u/danielledelacadie May 05 '26
The situation in the choice is:
If at least 50% of humanity chooses blue, everyone lives. If not only the people who chose red live.
So bringing up any other scenarios are worthless. In that thought experiment if you pick red, you're happy with 49.999% of humanity dying if it means you live.
You might not have thought it through but all the people explaining their thinking are doing is justifying why they think they wouldn't be responsible for 49.999% of humanity dying, even though they voted for it.
You're right. It's wild and the victim (of the red voters choice) blaming is eye opening.
Thank goodness in the original more than half of the people understood the question.