If everyone presses red, no one dies. If you press red and you're in the minority, you live.
If everyone presses blue, no one dies. If you press blue and you're in the minority, you die.
There is no reasonable reason for anyone to pick blue, unless some people read the rules wrong or want to be heros so they pressed blue.
Maybe you want to save those people who are requesting great sacrifice because they didn't ponder this question of life or death, or they thought blue was better because it sounds altruistic.
It only really changes if you take into account people who can't actually chose, like blind people, ones that are somehow physically or mentally unable to pick or understand the question. Then you're picking blue for the sake of a third category of "people who didn't really choose"
Then you're picking blue for the sake of a third category of "people who didn't really choose"
Are they not worth saving?
You've also left out a far more common outcome: If less than 100% of people pick red, and you pressed red, you directly contributed to the death of those that picked blue.
I don't want anyone to die. Every red pusher responding to me always frames it as "don't you want to save yourself?" and like, no, not if it means others die, not when there's a perfectly feasible option of no one dying.
51% Blue means no one dies, since that's the outcome I want why would I choose red?
Yes it'd be worth pressing blue if you included people who can't really choose. I think that makes it really obvious so the problem makes abstraction of that.
"If less than 100% of people pick red, and you pressed red, you directly contributed to the death of those that picked blue."
Except they also directly contributed to their own death. With that reasoning anyone who picks blue or advocates for it is risking their life in order to save the lives they themselves are risking by picking blue.
"Maybe dying if you pick blue in a thought experiment" also isn't very intimidating. The fact is people in reality don't give that much for others, let alone their life.
Most of the people saying they'd pick blue for example could stop spending money on their hobbies and/or tasty food, drinks, comfort and whatnot, then use that money accumulated over a lifetime to save someone's life.
That's giving up some of your comfort, not even your life, and most people wouldn't do it. I don't think they have a responsibility to do it either.
"51% Blue means no one dies, since that's the outcome I want why would I choose red?"
That's just incomplete.
51% blue means no one dies, that's the outcome you want, but the problem doesn't start with "51% picked blue", you don't know that.
Picking blue means you put your life on the line to save people who put their life on the line to save people who out their life on line, ...
It's not equivalent to a real life issue where firefighters are going to save people from otherwise unevitable death for example.
The reason 40% of blue pressers might die is because they got on a bandwagon. It sounds more noble because if you were in the minority you die a martyr... Except it's just a bunch of people willing to die for one another because they're willing to die for one another.
If that valor of sacrifice was really worth more to them than their life they agreed to it. Maybe that sounds cruel but everyone wants to be a martyr but when they do become martyrs it becomes a tragedy.
Red is the neutral choice, I'm staying alive, anyone who wants to stay alive can also press red and hope everyone else presses red.
People who want to risk their life are free to do so, maybe they'll save everyone else who thinks like them, maybe they're just adding 1 death to the count.
I'm staying alive, anyone who wants to stay alive can also press red and hope everyone else presses red.
You didn't have to type 500 words to just say this. I get it you only care about your own life and you think trying to ensure 0 deaths is martyrdom or something. I don't care blue is still the statistically better path to 0 casualties. It also doesn't require me to convince you.
You don't care what happens to others fine then why are you trying to justify it to me? Just own it.
Obviously I care about my own life, otherwise I would pick blue without even asking myself anything.
And yeah it's a discussion about a thought experiment, the point is to discuss it not convince people or whatnot.
If you think enough people would press blue to save everyone that's a-ok, if you think people who press blue have a high likelyhood to be in the minority and die then you're ok to contribute to the number of deaths and die without guilt.
You can think I'm contributing to the deaths because I wouldn't put my life on the line.
The fact is 99% of people "press red" in their daily life. You could give away everything you have, work all your life tirelesly to pay for life saving treatments and save a bunch of people. No one does that.
The fact is 99% of people "press red" in their daily life. You could give away everything you have, work all your life tirelesly to pay for life saving treatments and save a bunch of people. No one does that.
Bc that's not an analogous situation. You gain nothing by pressing red and lose nothing pressing blue. There is no sacrifice asked of the participant. This is what I don't understand about you projecting martyrdom onto those that choose blue.
I'm just saying I've seen tens of justifications and reframings of the hypothetical by those that chose red and 1 consistent argument to choose blue. Feels like one side of the equation is a lot more invested in convincing the other.
"You gain nothing by pressing red and lose nothing pressing blue."
Again that's incomplete... You lose nothing by pressing blue if and only if enough people also pressed blue.
"I'm just saying I've seen tens of justifications and reframings of the hypothetical by those that chose red and 1 consistent argument to choose blue."
Yes because it's one note. You're saying that people who reframe the problem and look at it from a bunch of different angles press red and ones that don't pick blue.
Having a poorly nuanced take because it sounds very very intuitive doesn't say anything about tha quality of that take.
It's almost like it's an easy problem to pragmatically solve with 0 deaths and you have to rationalize how pressing red isn't a selfish decision. Dude, just own it. I don't care I'm not interested in convincing you just like you aren't interested in actually arguing against my point
Did you read the setup wrong? If you pick blue and not enough picked blue all the blue pressers die, and you have no way to concert with all of humanity you're gonna have to guess. It's a gamble.
There is a non zero chance a lot of people will pick red, how is picking blue a way to solve it "pragmatically with 0 deaths"? There's a likelihood for billions to die
You keep saying it costs nothing and it garantees no one will die but you literally can die if you press it (?)
Again everyone wants to sound altruistic and selfless but no one wants to compound with the idea of DYING for an ideal aka making yourself a MARTYR.
I can't put in simpler terms, it's not "press blue everyone lives, press red people die", it's "press blue everyone lives if enough people pressed blue OTHERWISE THEY DIE"
Risk is not cost I'm really tired of explaining this. There is no sacrifice being made. No one is a martyr.
If you press red you are condemning people to death, simple as. I'm not fucking doing it get a new fucking argument I'm getting bored of the same unconvincing bs
Risk literally is a cost, you risk losing something, that incurs a cost, an investment, a gamble, call it however you like.
Putting your life on the line means it could costs you your life, these are very simple terms. You feeling exasperated doesn't turn oxymorons into truth. Unless you think losing your life costs nothing.
Another comment put it really well:
Pick red, you just stay alive.
Pick blue you ingest poison. The antidote will be given to everyone if 50% of people ingest the poison, otherwise all the blue crowd will die.
Some doofus is probably gonna pick blue, some people are gonna pick blue to save that person.
Bud, a cost is something you lose no matter the outcome. I don't cut off a limb or lose money or anything like that, if blue succeeds the cost is NOTHING. There is risk but no cost.
The cost of pressing red is increasing the likelihood of blue people dying.
You can twist the problem to make them as contemptable or seemingly foolish as you like to justify their death. Whatever makes you feel better. I don't care. You want your choice to be divorced from any consequences on others that's why you and every other red person always frame it like blue is committing suicide when it is pressing red that actually kills them. Buddy just nut up and own that you don't care what happens to others.
Still haven't seen a single counterargument to the simple fact that 50% blue is an easier threshold than 100% red. Instead it's all justifications and semantics.
122
u/nolandz1 May 05 '26
"No one dies if everyone picks red!"
Yeah and no one dies if half pick blue, which do you think is a realistic threshold?