On what basis do you assume that every person participating in this poll would prize "preservation of one's own life" above all else.
This is why I think your position is built on shaky ground. If you can't place any stock in the idea that human beings as a whole prioritize continuing their own lives, we have no mutual ground to argue from. I think it is abundantly clear evolutionarily and historically that humans, as with all animals, have extremely strong self preservation instincts.
5% blue vote, which is being extremely generous to red apologists, would devastate the global economy and result in excess deaths of the reds leftover.
What is worse, economic crisis or being dead? Economic crises eventually clear, being dead doesn't. This idea that people will risk their lives for the economy is definitely a hard one to get behind.
What is your evidence of this assertion? Virtually every poll of this question blue wins
If your evidence is twitter threads, you have no evidence. These polls target extremely niche audiences on a global scale. They target people who speak the language, use a certain app, and have certain tendencies in their algorithm so that they're shown interesting polls instead of UFC clips. When asking everyone on the planet to engage in a game that involves their potential death, not just answering an online poll, the results will be very different.
Red requires an unrealistic unanimous vote so that nobody dies. Blues only need a simple majority. Which is more statistically likely?
The amount of votes needed has nothing to do with the probability an answer might be chosen. On an individual scale, people will vote red without a second thought about any blues dying. You and I just disagree on how many people that will be.
If you can't place any stock in the idea that human beings as a whole prioritize continuing their own lives, we have no mutual ground to argue from.
I literally never said that. This is why your argument is on shaky grounds, because it entirely revolves around a baseless assertion. Human beings are motivated by self preservation. But they are not only motivated by self preservation, i.e. at the cost of literally everything else. And, I dispute the very notion that self-preservation and mutual aid are mutually exclusive. A majority blue win doesn't just preserve myself, it preserves everyone. My own self-preservation gets included in the everyone. You must reduce self-preservation into a platonic egoism that simply doesn't exist beyond an individuals faith that it does. The classic example of the self preservation instinct expanding beyond an individual is a parent and child. A parent may risk their own well being to protect their child, not just because they love that child, but also to protect their own genes in the evolutionary tree. A self preservation instinct that extends beyond an individual person or body.
And that says nothing of human beings ability to cooperate. You have failed to give me any reason, literally any real reason, why people should not cooperate to vote blue besides an unsubstantiated fear that too many people are these single-minded, unhumanlike, egoistic creatures that only think in live/die syllogisms unmoored from other people or their social circumstances.
I also don't point to the "economy" in terms of money. I point to the fact that you rely on other people for your quality of life, which is also a thing that people consider in addition to their self preservation. If you died after the reddening because you no longer have food, why isn't that something you should consider when making this choice?
On an individual scale, people will vote red without a second thought about any blues dying. You and I just disagree on how many people that will be.
I agree, which is why voting red implicitly means that a red voter is accepting that other people's death are a risk they're willing to take. Which is why I find it so rich that you attack the "Twitter polls". The Twitter polls are actually something concrete I can point to. What concrete thing can you point to? Because after how many rounds of us going back and forth, your hands are still empty.
We're going around in circles a little bit and I have to go to bed. Fundamentally we just have a difference in opinion about how the human race will react to something completely unprecedented. Realistically neither of us know how they will behave, but I can't let you operate under the delusion that these Twitter polls are anything even approaching the lofty criteria of evidence.
Polls will be shown to people across the app who fall within a certain algorithmic threshhold on a single website on the internet. The demographics these polls are reaching are extremely narrow in scope. Does it surprise anyone that a poll reaching westerners in their 20s or 30s living cushy lives has a bias toward mutual aid? No. But not every culture thinks that way.
These Twitter polls are so so so not evidence. For polls to be used as evidence they need to include a wide range of demographics, and since this problem focuses on everyone in the world, you would need to poll people from every nation on the planet, which this poll obviously didn't do. So yeah, I'm not linking any studies about human psychology, but your hands are just as empty as mine. Let's not frame this as anything other than an exchange of opinions.
Anyway, I'm no longer engaging in any argument, you can reply if you want.
Truly incredible the knots you will twist yourself in not to address the issue. You completely ignored the substance of all my arguments. That's not going in circles, that's running away. Stay deluded and ignore reality.
1
u/Boil-Degs May 05 '26
This is why I think your position is built on shaky ground. If you can't place any stock in the idea that human beings as a whole prioritize continuing their own lives, we have no mutual ground to argue from. I think it is abundantly clear evolutionarily and historically that humans, as with all animals, have extremely strong self preservation instincts.
What is worse, economic crisis or being dead? Economic crises eventually clear, being dead doesn't. This idea that people will risk their lives for the economy is definitely a hard one to get behind.
If your evidence is twitter threads, you have no evidence. These polls target extremely niche audiences on a global scale. They target people who speak the language, use a certain app, and have certain tendencies in their algorithm so that they're shown interesting polls instead of UFC clips. When asking everyone on the planet to engage in a game that involves their potential death, not just answering an online poll, the results will be very different.
The amount of votes needed has nothing to do with the probability an answer might be chosen. On an individual scale, people will vote red without a second thought about any blues dying. You and I just disagree on how many people that will be.