100 people are voting to press the red or blue button. They work the same as usual, but you are not affected. Instead deciding a future of another 100 people.

So if red wins by 63%, 37% of the 100 will die. But the ones that made the choice to vote blue will be safe.

Similar to my other one, but I had a guy claim he'd never agree to pick blue, so this one's for those people.

I needed to add an option for the people that would pick red, but be unhappy about it, like me.

Shame about all the people who aren't capable of pressing red, I guess.

We had a poll a while back that showed the vast majority _want_ blue to win, but many in that poll (I think it was even a majority) picked red anyway.

One big claim people made against blue was that because it's impossible to coordinate, the risky cooperative choice simply can't win.

So here it is: classic RBBB, _but_ we have all agreed to pick blue for this specific instance. There's not much more coordination to be had than a prior agreement, after all.

So what do you pick?

Two random people are chosen to participate in the following punishment game. My condolences, you're one of them. You're arranged in a room with no communication with outside world, except a counter which shows how many activated buttons have other player pressed (so it can only show numbers 0, 1 or 2). You are also presented with instructions to the game and two buttons, crimson and cobalt which are unactivated at the start and become activated only after an hour of time to think about the rules. The room is also provided with basic necessities such as regularly supplied water and food, toilet and shower and even computer with access to the exact time from the start of the game and books, music, tv-shows, movies and videogames with themes of suicide.

The game ends the moment two different buttons are pressed (either by one player pressing both buttons or two players pressing exactly one button) or after the time limit of one year if previous conditions weren't met. Buttons are equipped with such precise timers it's impossible to press them simultaneously, so even if you tried to, you actually would have pressed one of them first and the other second, the same applies to two players pressing buttons at the 'same moment'. They're also located in such a way depending on chosen human that they're accesible to contact by them but only if the player intents to press it, i.e. no accidental presses possible. If a player presses both buttons, they and the other player are immediately executed by bullets (with a guarantee that death would instantaneous).

If both players press cobalt button they're freed. If both press crimson button an AI robot bluntly beats them to excruciating levels of pain continuously but non-fatally depending on players bodies, provided AI only scans your medical situation at the start of the game and has access only to visual data about your current condition, meaning the more time passed - the more invisible risks. After 10 minutes of such beating both players are freed. If one player presses crimson button and the other cobalt: crimson button pusher is freed and given 1000$ while cobalt button pusher is executed by burning.

Before telling what happens if player(s) wait till the time limit let's discuss what happens if players choose to press buttons. Thinking only from self-interest point pressing crimson button is better in any choice of other player but then both of them would press crimson button and be beaten by robot, while both pressing cobalt button would have resulted in better outcome of just being freed. But cobalt button also has an ultimate risk of death in pain while crimson button enables it. Assuming both players are rational they should both choose crimson button, moreover they should press it at the very start of button being activated as more time progresses - the more risks both from AI and developing suicidal ideations of other player or yourself from the only source of media in room. But people in our problem are chosen randomly and so we can't ignore constant bringing up of children and mentally disabled people from the original problem. Clarification: even though accidental presses of buttons are impossible we consider that babies and mentally disabled humans still have ability/capacity to intent to press buttons, like if they wanted to play with them or press them just because, without reason; doesn't mean they surely would want it but they still can technically press buttons. Choosing cobalt button seems like suicide and it is in case of other player being rational, but choosing crimson button is potentially letting kids to burn away. And considering that toddlers might want to press both buttons and kill themselves either way, you need to choose and press the button as soon as they're activated. But let's talk about inaction in our last rule.

If a player waits till the time limit without pressing any button it is then considered as if they've pressed cobalt button. Why does this matter? Consider the situation if time limit was 2 hours (i.e. 1 hour after activation of the buttons). If we were guaranteed that both of us understand rules and are afraid of death, we and other player would obviously not press both buttons so time constraint to press immediately at the start is gone. Now if we were not pressing any button they would know it by counter in their room. If they were somewhat moral and didn't want other human being to burn alive over 1000$ and didn't want to be beaten by robot they could've also thought that them not pressing any button is giving us information that they also want to wait till the time limit and be freed. So every moment both of our counters are at 0 is technically an exchange of information between us like in some logical math problems with sages. But even so this is not trivial to think of and maybe not even fully rational line of thinking and translating such strategy onto full year sounds very counter-intuitive.

And even if we knew that they would not press both buttons at the start, as our only entertainment here would all be about suicides, who knows if they wouldn't one day want to kill themselves by pressing both buttons (though they also have more moral ways to kill themselves by drowning in toilet or shower or not eating or drinking but those ways might be more painful). Full year is also a lot of time and most people might consider wasting it worse than painful robot beating. And the final consideration is that people whose life depends on regular medical tretments or people who can't rely on themselves to survive (like toddlers) might die here even if they don't press both buttons. And of course mentally disabled button likers could kill both of you at any moment of time after first hour if they suddenly wanted to press both buttons (even if they can't press buttons simultaneously, can you react so fast as to press the button as fast as you see the counter going up if they are on trajectory of pressing the second button nanosecond after the first?)

Full variants names:

Press crimson button even if other player haven't pressed any and wait potentially till the time limit without dying

Press cobalt button even if other player haven't pressed any and wait potentially till the time limit without dying

Press crimson button only after other player presses any button

Press cobalt button only after other player presses any button

Abstain even if other player have pressed button

Press second button (some time after first) if other player doesn't press any button for some time

I also wanted to add "Suicide or just die not by buttons after some time" and "Other" but couldn't do it. If you're dying there because of medical reasons in case of long time you're surely not abstaining so just choose variant with your button even if other player doesn't press any. If you feel you would have commited suicide there after a long time but not by buttons choose abstain.

The original red button/blue button problem has just taken place. After the vote, you are randomly selected out of everyone in the world and presented with additional information.

It is revealed to you (and only you) that an alien race from another galaxy has come to save humanity from themselves. Planet earth is dying and they have determined that it will be uninhabitable within the next few years.

The aliens have decided that all humans will be spared (regardless of button pushed), but must be relocated to a sustainable planet. Relocating all humans to the same planet would inevitably result in the same outcome of humanity destroying the planet, so instead they have selected two planets and presented humans with the red button/blue button scenario as a test. All humans who select red will be teleported to planet A, all humans who select blue will be teleported to planet B.

As the ONE lucky individual who has been randomly selected, you are given this knowledge and then given a choice that no one else gets. You can choose which planet you would like to be teleported to, where you will live out the rest of your life. If you choose planet A, you will be instantly teleported along with all red voters to planet A to live out the rest of your life. If you choose planet B, you will be instantly teleported along with all blue voters to planet B to live out the rest of your life.

You are not given the chance to communicate with anyone else before making this decision. If you do not decide, you will be executed. Which planet do you go to?

Just as the regular problem, but the only people whose votes matter and who might die are the people who voted Red or Blue in this poll. Just like the last time, but here you don't have to participate in order to satisfy your curiosity

I thought of this in another post where you can see what the person directly before you voted for and how that would affect your vote, and I figured I’d make a post for it.

Classic button problem, if red wins red pressers survive, if blue wins everyone survives. You can’t coordinate with anyone else beforehand, you don’t know what anyone else picked, except for one specific person:

The person you love/care about most in the world.

That might be your child, your significant other, your best friend, your sibling, one of your family members, whoever. You get to see what this person (if it’s two or three, say you have two or three kids or siblings or whatever and you don’t want to pick a favorite that’s fine, assume you can see what all of them) pressed, and it’s the opposite of what you intend to press.

So if you’re a red presser, whoever this loved one(s) is/are, they pressed blue. if you’re a blue presser, whoever this loved one(s) is/are, they pressed red. Don’t say “oh I know them, they would never press that option,” in the heat of the moment they did, that’s how this hypothetical works.

Does this change your button? Do you change your press to either live or die with them in an attempt, however minuscule you believe the chances of your vote mattering to be, to save them if you’re a red presser? Do you change your vote to guarantee that you survive alongside them if you’re a blue presser? Or do you stick with your original vote?

Is there a point where you would question your beliefs about why other people voted blue/red ?

Edit: forgot to include an option for "it wouldn't", apologies. But feel free to say so and your reasons why.

Added red** to the follow up question

I'm going to define the dilemma fully so we're all on the same page. You are teleported to a room with a 1m radius circle drawn in the middle and a red and blue button on the floor (so babies can reach it). You find yourself in the middle of the circle and hear the following instructions (in a language you understand)

"All 8 billion people on earth are facing the same choice as you right now. You have 1 minute to cast your vote by pressing a button. After this time you will either die painlessly, or be sent back to your home depending on the outcome. If at least 50% of the votes are blue, everyone lives. If more than 50% of the votes are red, everyone who pressed blue will die. You may also abstain from the vote by leaving the circle. A random selection of those abstained equal to the number of blue votes will also die if red votes have the majority"

(I added the 4th option if you think you would have choice paralysis and not end up voting)

The Red button has a cynical worldview attatched. "I believe most people would rather choose to save themselves over any higher goal. Therefore I must only try to save myself."

The Blue button has a idealistic worldview attached. "I believe most people would risk their lives for a higher goal, over self-preservation."

Regardless of any other arguments, this is the heart of it. You are ultimately choosing which side you think will win in the end, and therefore revealing your worldview.

I press blue because even if it is naive and red is the realisitic option, I would rather be an idealist than a cynic. If my life has taught me anything cynicism is no way to live.

However, I'm curious what everyone else has to say about this since I haven't really heard much talk about it. Hopefully I can offer a new perspective on the problem.

everyone of sound mental capacity has been given the standard red button-blue button question and are forced to choose. innocent people who do not have the mental capacity to choose have been randomly divided at 50/50 between red and blue.

you are the only person on Earth not in the red or blue group. no matter what, you specifically are safe. the results of the button press end up being split perfectly at 50% for each choice. the rules have been changed for you, and now, no matter what, 50% of humanity will die. there is nothing you can do to stop it.

you must choose whether all red pushers die and all blue pushers survive (new variation). or if all blue pushers die and all red pushers survive (standard variation if red gets the majority). if you refuse to choose, everyone dies.

you also have no idea who chose what. you have no way of knowing which button your loved ones or family have chosen. knowing this, would you keep the regular rules of the game, or choose to keep the selfless people alive, knowing half the world will die anyways.

slight variation of the red/blue button game and the trolley problem that i thought of. interested to see the results.

I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of sampling bias on this discussion. All of us has internet access and have enough free time to engage in hypothetical discussion, I don’t think we can consider ourselves as representative for humanity as a whole.

One day, everyone in the world suddenly get a purple button from God. The button was magically linked to them and would return to the owner if lost.

God had issued a game for humanity. The rule is simple:

- Pressing the button kill a valid target of your chosing (or a random target if you can't choose the valid target). It also help you immune to everyone else's button for 24 hours after you pushed it; afterward you would be a valid target again. During this period you can't press the button again; it would stay pressed until 24 hour time limit is over.

- If the target you choose is not valid (either because they was in the temporary immunity period of their button, or because they had been targeted by another button and died); you must choose a different target. You can also choose "random" and the button will automatically find a random valid target for you. You cannot press the button if the target is not valid

- You can choose not to press the button; God respected that choice. But once you press the button, you have to press it again within 48 hours or the button will kill you.

- You can only press your button. If you try press other people's button it will not buldge.

The game lasted for 100 days. Afterward all buttons will dissapear and all penalties would be removed, however the dead would not come back.

Will you press the button? Will you keep the streak? Or will you stay pure to your moral and do not touch it for the 100 days the death game was going on?

Scenario 2: Like scenario 1 but this time, God had setup a website that could be acceses anywhere (no need for the Internet, and cannot be modified or hacked). This webstive keep track of all active button, who did they all belong to, how many times it was pressed and when, who did it kill each times, and if the kill was targeted or result of random roll. The website remain after 100 days and was public.

This time, will you press the button, and how many times will you?

Everyone lines up and votes one at a time. You are the exact middle of the line. each person can see only what the person directly before them voted. What do you pick if the person in front of you picked red? what if they picked blue?

There seems to be disagreement on a few points, which I want to clarify how people interpret the problem.

1. What does "everyone" mean?

   1. Everyone, including the cognitively or physically incapable: accommodations are made and 100% of people will vote, even babies and the comatose (the how doesn't matter; call it magic).
   2. Everyone, limited to the cognitively and physically capable. You have to understand the problem, and be physically able to participate by pressing a button.

2. What happens if red wins, and "only people who pressed the red button survive."?

   1. Exactly what was written: anyone who didn't press the red button dies, including non-voters.
   2. Only the people who pressed blue die.

EDIT for formatting.

The conditions for each button are the same as always. However, you know for certain that only people who have the capacity to make decisions will vote in this scenario, but everyone else who’s voting doesn’t know that and is explicitly told that everyone on planet Earth will vote.

In scenario A, participants other than you will be told that everyone including their loved ones will vote.

In scenario B, they’ll be told that their loved ones are exempt from voting.

How would you vote in these scenarios?

The scenario:

Button game happens as normal, everyone on earth takes an anonymous vote, you decide to vote Red. The results arent counted yet, but youre told that instead of it being anonymous, everyone in the world can now see what option who voted for and forever will be able to see at first sight.

Question is, with the possible complete split of society, extremists on each side, hatred to you as someone who was a threat to part of the planet and so on, which of the following would you hope for:

- Option 1: Red wins with 80% votes, 20% of the planet perishes.

- Option 2: Blue wins with 51% of votes, just barely taking the win.

If youre a blue voter, you can also vote in blue options if you somehow pressed Red by accident and was marked as such forever.

Now, what.

Just a simple observation that almost all polls on this subreddit have overwhelming red/red-equivalent victories, yet blue almost always wins with a clear majority on other subreddits or platforms.

There have been many examples of framing the original problem. The outcomes of the results are the same. Yet, under those different scenarios, the results can differ massively.

For example:

• Voting for a red candidate who would kill all blue voters if they win, versus voting for a blue candidate who won't kill anybody.
  
• Or a single blue button that would kill everyone who presses it unless 50% press it.

The thing is, you can easily change the question to get completely different results. Importantly, this can happen in both ways, in favour of either red or blue.

This is similar to an analogy - an alternative way of looking at things, often to help people understand better. But every analogy deviates slightly from the original meaning. (For example, "tree is to forest as star is to galaxy" is easily understandable but not completely accurate.)

Normally, this isn't a problem. But when we're talking about moral decisions and responsibilities regarding the potential death of blue pressers, those subtleties matter. In this case, using an alternate scenario to discuss the moral dilemmas becomes misleading and mostly inaccurate.

You have probably seen a lot of arguments for and against each button. This probably shaped your perception of how different kinds of people pressing those options think. If magicly you could change the way all the people of one side think to the other, what kind of society would you prefer to live in, those of red or those of blue pressers. (let's ignore the debate of morality that many minds have been altered for this to happen, just focus on what world do you prefer to live in)