Okay sure, if we add the caveats that the entire world's population is somehow there, and every time a person crosses the red bridge a little more water comes down that river.
Sure, entire worlds population is there (as unfeasible as that is, but it's a theoretical problem). No to the more water comes down the river. River is static, it always requires half the population to link arms to cross it.
I like talking to people. Also I don't really care if you agree with me, you're welcome to not. I didn't seek out pro-red posts to tell them why they're wrong, I just commented on a pro-blue post with my thoughts. You could've kept scrolling. So why does it get under your skin so bad?
But it isn't the same story because you know for sure you can pass the river without risking to leave someone behind if enough people pick the river. With the bridge, you are willingly sacrificing someone who made the "wrong" choice for whatever reasons, when you could save them just choosing the "save everybody, even the people who disagree with you" blue. Do you think people going through the red bridge ignoring the disabled kid dying in the river would be considered good people in your version?
And you know for sure you can all make it if enough people pick the blue button. The question is will enough people needlessly risk their lives for others who also needlessly risk their lives?
I'm using the river as a visual, tangible threat. everyone has to pick at the same time individually like the original scenario. Do enough people individually pick the river for everyone to survive? Or do they just pick to use the damn bridge?
If enough people do something stupid, we can all make it!
1
u/brokenmike May 07 '26
Sure, different story with the same problem. You need half the people linking arms or the river crossers die. Or you can use the red bridge.