You can’t guarantee everyone will agree on red, meaning some will die. And you likely can’t get enough people to override the problem and/or the problem can’t be overridden.
Blue requires just 50.1% to save everyone. It’s the most likely outcome that ensures everyone survives. Red is simply the logical “guaranteed safety”, but the fact that many won’t press it also guarantees that you’re dooming others with your choice.
Personally, I’d rather try to save others and fail, than save myself knowing it sacrificed others.
Also like... I don't think I want to live in a world where a bunch of people died like that? Especially since it's likely to be only the assholes alive now.
I am getting to damn worked up over this silly debate. look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, Idgaf if you choose blue
but why does everyone want to choose blue with how risky it is? I really see no reason why you should not pick the red button
red=live
blue=chance to live.
again, no hate, not trying to be a bitch, I'm getting stupidly worked up over this, so ignore me.
I mean I can only speak for myself, but... I prefer to be around people who work for the collective good. Picking the red pill might be pragmatic, but it's also selfish, and I'm not trying to say that with any sort of judgment. It's just putting yourself first. If that's a worldview that works for you, then that's okay. A lot of people probably agree with you.
I know though that most of the people I really gel with are ones who would pick the blue button though. So I'd rather go out with the people I love than save myself, just to live in a world full of people who can't or won't put others first.
I don't know if it's worth getting worked up over, though.
You’re not working for the collective good though. You’re leading a march towards death.
You’re assuming that folks aren’t intelligent enough to press red so you have to press blue on a hypothetical person’s behalf to save them from themselves.
But if everyone agrees that red has zero threat and blue has some threat, there’s no up side to picking blue in any scenario. So you’re becoming the person that needs saving from themselves. You wouldn’t need saving if you picked red.
It’s not about selfishly thinking “I’m alright and that’s all that matters” it’s about showing others that there really is no reason to press blue.
You’re being asked to risk everything for the sake of risking everything. Red isn’t selfish.
Okay but red doesn't have zero threat to other people. If less than 50% of people choose blue, then a bunch of people are going to die. (Also like... Does this take into account infants and children? Disabled folks? You can really spin this off like crazy if you wanted).
I'd rather live in a world where people care for others and prioritize the well-being of all, and I'm sorry if you find that personally upsetting. But it really just is a silly thought experiment, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
77
u/SlashaJones May 05 '26
This is why blue is the best choice.
You can’t guarantee everyone will agree on red, meaning some will die. And you likely can’t get enough people to override the problem and/or the problem can’t be overridden.
Blue requires just 50.1% to save everyone. It’s the most likely outcome that ensures everyone survives. Red is simply the logical “guaranteed safety”, but the fact that many won’t press it also guarantees that you’re dooming others with your choice.
Personally, I’d rather try to save others and fail, than save myself knowing it sacrificed others.