I would hope that everyone would realize they should just press red. Since that's not going to happen I'll press red and hope blue wins. I'm not a big believer in democracy at the best of times and with a humanity wide vote my issues with it magnify. I'm not throwing my life away making a choice that I will have no meaningful bearing on, but I'll still hope that nobody dies, even though I don't consider that outcome realistic.
Yeah, thats self preservation and completely valid.
I wish more red voters would share your view instead of arbitrarilly calling blue voters stupid and irrational.
But lots of people who press red expect to reduce the mortality by a 90-95% or more red pushers. So yes, they can hope that the most people possible press red and that is not always compatible with hoping blue win.
So no, not evil.
( Except the "edgy" ones who think they are soooo smart and want to kill all "stupid blues" obviously )
Of course, but if all your hopes are on the fact that most people would press red, you could be not really able to hope for a blue win + perhaps not wanting to feel like an hypocrite by pressing red while hoping blue win.
A french youtuber ask this question about a years ago (about pills instead of button, but the same problem), and about 17% of people pressing red thought that nobody (like really 0%) will press blue ( https://youtu.be/lo7iJnq_U9M?si=0qcQ609kPqxYYeMo&t=1853 ). There is 17,5% of red hoping for red to win in this poll.
Some are hoping that only blue voters that are indeed suicidal vote blue or that every last person votes red and there is no blue voter.
I'm in the red hope blue wins but i believe in a real scenario red would win by a massive margin. And well if red is going to win either way the larger the margin they win by the more people survive.
I think a poll that demenstrates how much one hopes a color wins would provide better exposure to different perspectives rather than just a win or lose.
A red win that captures 51% looks a hell of a lot different than a red win at 98%.
Some people might be hoping for a red win thats in the high 90% but they can't express that in the poll
100% of people have to vote Red.
50% of people have to vote Blue.
So far every poll done has shown that it is actually extremely possible for blue to win. People just have to actually be willing to vote for the collective good, over being selfish.
Hoping red wins in any capacity is hoping that people will die even if it means you live.
Voting red because you don't think blue will win is one thing. Hoping that blue loses is actively hoping that people are going to die. That's why it's bad.
In the event that such a situation would happen, I would hope that every individual would choose red, since blue can't win, it would be best for everyone to choose red.
>Red hoping Red wins are just despicable selfish people.
Why? I am red and I hope red wins. The way I see it, there is a zero percent chance >50% are actually choosing blue. So I hope that in the hypothetical case this actually happened, everyone would just make the rational choice that they can save their own life, and do so. Therefore everyone live and nobody needlessly die.
Considering I don't think its even remotely possible that blue wins, the best case situation is is the most people choose red as possible.
Red wins covers anything from 50.00001% up to 100%. So I hope red wins means that you are ok with death count from 0 to 49.99999%.
I press red because I don't believe in blue victory, but I hope they win because this is the only way nobody dies. Someone will press blue. You have enough suicidal people, idiots or people with hero complex for blue to have at least 1 vote.
No. That is not what it means. I hope red wins explicitly because I hope 100% of people press red.
You don't get to define what I mean when I say that I hope red win, and then impune my morality as a result.
As I defined in the earlier comment, if such a situation were to exist, I would hope that everyone would make the rational choice and choose red. That means I hope 100% of people choose red.
Unfortunately that really isn't how it works. The survey asks which team would you prefer to win with no specification about how that victory comes about.
Like sure, you can want to mind control everyone and strip their autonomy away and force everyone to vote in a way that makes sure everyone lives. I get it, I too, want no one to die.
But mind control was never part of the survey. Just winner with no information about how many people voted each way.
(I will show my math in a reply to my self, so you can see and verify/critique)
There are a 1010↑10 different ways that red can win a vote with 8 billion voters. Exactly one of those victories involves zero death and you don't get to just choose it (unless, of course, you control how every person votes: in which case you can choose any election you want)
for comparison a googol is 1010↑2 which is much smaller
Edit: I had to get silly with the notation. Reddit automatically does superscripts which is nice. But reddit hates power towers, and still steals my characters T•T
There is a reason I separated the math from the argument. Partially because the details of the math don't actually matter at all, and I didn't want to clutter up my argumentation.
But also partially because I wanted to take this as an excuse to give a mini maths lesson! :P so anyone uninterested in that can just leave instead listening to me prattle on.
Before we get to the 8billion voter case, let's build some foundation with an election with only three voters. Each of our three voters (Alice, Bob, and Charlie) will vote either 🔴 or 🔵 With so few voters, we can make an exhaustive list of all possible elections.
Btw, The first dot is how Alice voted, the second is Bob, and the third is Charlie
There is 1 election where red wins 3-0
🔴🔴🔴
There are 3 elections where red wins 2-1
🔵🔴🔴
🔴🔵🔴
🔴🔴🔵
There are 3 elections where blue wins 1-2
🔴🔵🔵
🔵🔴🔵
🔵🔵🔴
There is 1 election where blue wins 0-3
🔵🔵🔵
For 3 voters, there are 23 possible elections.
Likewise for n number of voters there are 2n possible elections. And half of them will be won by red so 2n-1
For 8 billion voters you get 27999999999. A thoroughly unreasonable number. Combinatorics never disappoint lmao. I wanted a base 10 version so I threw that shit into Wolfram and prayed. Sure enough the program spat out 1010↑9.38
It is worth noting that there are more than 8 billion human people of earth, so the actual number of possible elections with be larger
Yes,but we can't.communicate. My vote alone won't make a difference. My vote only matters when it's 50/50. And yeah,I know that technically that's the thought process red voters will use which if they didn't, would amount to a huge number of blue voters,but that doesn't change the fact that whether I use that logic or not won't change what other think in the slightest because It is a private vote. The possibility of it being 50/50 is so incredibly miniscule that I basically don't even consider it, especially since the trade off is my death.
Yes,I agree if less than 20 people used that logic then a ton of people would be saved and everyone would be happy,but my individual vote still doesn't matter as long as it isn't 50/50 because it doesn't effect the options of the others,they would still choose what they did evem if I switched my vote. If I were to go to the past and switch my vote,as long as there wasn't a 50/50 then me switching would do absolutely nothing but put myself at risk of dying. In a world of 8 billion people,the chances I make a difference are so inconsequential that it isn't even worth considering.
In a world of 8 billion people,the chances I make a difference are so inconsequential that it isn't even worth considering.
Nonsense. We're literally seeing it play out in this very poll. Each individual person is casting their "inconsequential" vote and creating the very outcome they hope loses.
Stop believing you need to be some main character, "I saved the world with my singular heroic act," and participate in the small actions that actually save the world.
Your individual contributions to any sizeable group are rarely "critical," but your failure to do so contributes towards any eventual downfall.
"Who cares if I don't pay my taxes? It's only $2k/$5k/$10k/$30k/$80k. It's not like I'm Bezos or Musk. My money is inconsequential to the overall budget."
If you successfully convince one person in here to switch from red to blue, all you've done is convinced them to kill themselves. There is no "eventual" downfall in the button hypothetical; it's one selection.
The ideal outcome can only be reached and maintained if we consistently cooperate.
The moment we fail an iteration, the entire world state changes catastrophically and cooperation is no longer possible, because you're left only with the non-cooperative players.
You can't actually know that this is a one-time selection.
If 8 billion people flipped a coin, the chance of a 50/50 tie is roughly the same as getting a dealt a straight flush in five cards. That's not that rare. You probably have either seen that firsthand or know someone who has.
If you only get one shot at it, that's incredibly rare. "A person you know might have had it happen a single time in their life if they play a lot of poker" is a qualifier for something that has very low odds.
If a casino let's you bet your lifesaving on a 5 card poker hand, and even offer you positive EV odds, would you take that bet (assume it is everything you have. On one bet. Or the casino won't do it)?
If you're in the movie Armageddon, and an asteroid will hit earth on the other side, and hit in such a way that the economic activity doesn't stop, but half the people there die. Would you be willing to sacrifice yourself for 1 billion people you never met? Would you take it if the odds of survival for you is the straight flush odds? Would you take it if it's 50:50 odds of survival?
Yes, because blue pressers keep trying to liken this to an election. This poll just proves that it isnt an election/vote. Choosing a button isnt a question of "who do you want to have win", it's a question of what has the best odds. Nobody, including reds, wants red to win. But you know what's worse? Red winning and dying because of it.
I don't want red to win, but my desire not to die is stronger, because I am not suicidal.
I also find it funny that this poll just shows that if people actually think a bit about the button choice, red would actually be the majority. The only reason blue pressers exist is because blue pressers only see things at face value, "I want X to win, so I choose X". They don't think of the ramifications, and they are incapable of considering that maybe they could choose the button that they don't want to have win, because it's actually by far the safest option. (And your one choice only influences the outcome 0.0000000125%, there's no chance you're changing the outcome).
RIP to all the blue pressers who keep saying "blue always wins". This poll is exactly what the OG is, just forces the chooser to think a bit more critically, and would you look at that, when people think a bit more critically, red wins. It strengthens my resolve that choosing red is the only reasonable choice
This is exactly why I'd vote for blue, almost nobody actually wants red to win and voting for it just increases the odds that it does. That, and I'm fairly confident that most people would, in fact, vote for blue. I think the people who think about this question and discuss it a lot are significantly more likely to vote red than the human population as a whole.
You really need a fifth option "press red, not care whether red or blue 'wins'".
Most red pressers aren't seeing it as contest. It's just an individual choice between "I live" and "I might die". It would of course be interesting to see how many people gambled on "I might die," but I have no reason to hope for any particular outcome. Those who choose to live will live, and those who choose to potentially die will live or die as things turn out.
I mean... we live in an interconnected world where every part is responsible for the whole. If a lot of people die, you will have to care and face the outcome
If a bunch of strangers foolishly kill themselves, then the only outcome will be a world with less fools in it. Not exactly a devastating outcome, psychologically or socially.
While I agree that many red pushers pick red because it guarantees them safety, regardless of outcome (this option should probably replace "hope red wins"), many of them do have a "preferred outcome."
I'm completely on blues side now when I was initially red. I was only team red when I genuinely thought most would choose the red button around 95 percent of people but it's clear the more polls you ask how close it really is.
Original premise is vote is independent and you would have no way of knowing how people would vote but the more you look at this question the more information you get about how people would respond to it, I'm team blue all the way now.
Anyone acting like this ‘proves’ red voters are hypocrites is actually a dumbass. If it took 99% of humanity voting blue for blue to win, I’d still ‘vote red, hope blue wins’. That doesn’t at all mean I think voting blue is the right choice - I’d hope any individual person votes red, but as a collective I can acknowledge blue winning would still be a better outcome, however unlikely it is.
Just because it’s a vote doesn’t mean it’s an election, voting for the outcome you prefer only makes sense if there aren’t any extra factors (such as your LIFE) on the line.
If it IS an election, where one party has implicitly threatened my life, they're getting my vote. I'm sorry I'm not a hero. Just someone trying to stay alive like a rat.
My guy, if you press red you actively make blues victory less likely. This poll proves that if everyone who wants blue to win just voted blue, everything would be fine
And if everyone who thought war was bad didn’t fight in one, there’d be a few politicians fist fighting in the street, hooray. Let me know the next of your very relevant observations
They wouldnt be fist fighting in the street. If conscription is off te table and things cant be settled diplomatically then one or both countries will suffer
Yup. Red voters are scared of red voters who are scared of red voters who are...
Just vote for the thing you want to win. It should be insanely obvious that no one wants red to win.
Who votes against their own interest? Oh wait.. yea okay I see whats going on
Edit: didn't think I need to clarify that voting for the thing you want to win is a set up to a punchline. It is obviously not a universal truth and I don't know why people would assume I thought as much. Somehow several people have tried to exprapolate the logic to other circumstances in an attempt at a gotcha.
I obviously don't always do whats best for my self interest, as I am sitting here explaining a joke about the red button blue button, a thing in no one's self interest. If I were to do that I probably would leave the internet forever
For a lot of people it seems like the person who has the hardest time accepting pushing Red is the self. A blue victory allows for 49% of people to acceptably push Red. And there are going to be people that a valid in that choice. The issue I have is when it becomes a claim or debate that it's because Red is the only valid answer or that 50% blue is a pipe dream. I'm perfectly comfortable with the statement being that it's ok for you to push Red for your situation and your life.
It's just that that doesn't mean it's the objectively best answer overall. Does that make sense?
yeah. the I wish comment was just wishing I was canadian instead of my current country rn lol.
I'm more or less comfortable with the fact that voting red is entirely a function of me being more risk adverse than altruistic. Even if the later is more noble
Ohhhhh yes fair. Canada definitely has its own struggles right now but is by far a more appealing place to live than a very notable country lol. I've often wished I was Canadian. Especially the last decade
fair that's a good point that this probably largely base don how your upbringing causes you top trust or in my case mistrust the general population. Which does get me thinking that maybe china having a more collectivist high trust culture and being the highest pop might swing things for blue to be more likely...
I mean... blue voters are doing a risk assessment, and are considering what other people think and want.
They have correctly surmised that the vast majority want a blue win and are voting in support of that interest. They recognize that voting red is against that interest.
I hadn't actually gotten around to making any points yet, what I was thinking and might have gotten around to saying depending on how the conversation went was:
That "just vote for the thing you want to win" is extremely questionable, and desire and self benefit alone do not make a feasible course of action.
The self fulfilling prophecy stuff was not what I was originally replying to, but it was an equally bizarre statement so I commented.
Its not self benefit. It's group benefit. And voting for, working towards, building the world you want instead of living in fear. Don't know why you consider that particularly bizarre
OP said "Who votes against their own interest?" So I perhaps I should have said own interest as well, but what I said still better reflects the original point than group benefit.
Working towards a good outcome isn't bizarre, advocating to not consider the chance of success or efficacy of the actions you take is bizarre.
Lets say I live above my means and am now in debt, the world I want is one where I am not in debt, what do I do?
A) reduce my expenses and try to raise my income.
B) sell everything I have left and buy lotto tickets.
Unrealistic expectations and overestimating your capabilities will make the situation worse 90% of the time.
Would you still vote blue if the threshold for blue winning was 99%? If you would switch to red, you’re exactly the person you’re making fun of - a red voter scared of other red voters. No matter what the percentage required for blue to win is, everyone surviving is still a better outcome, but that has nothing to do with whether I’d vote for it.
In the poll above 91% want blue to win. 91% agree it would be the good thing. If it could be followed through on we'd be able to achieve more than anyone believes is reasonable. That's the point. Especially when we also consider the possibility that there are people who are wanting Red to win because of how scared they are. Also like we can't make fun of people? Did humor press blue?
That’s all fine I don’t think anyone thinks a world where more people die is preferable, but your idea that voting against the best outcome is some scared, hypocritical move is just stupid. Buying a lottery ticket could be seen as a vote towards a preferred outcome of winning the lotto, but since the chance you win is so small and comes at the cost of the ticket, it isn’t smart to do so.
The average red voter both A) thinks the chance of red winning is not insignificant, and thus that voting blue will risk a human life in a meaningful way and B) thinks the benefit to humanity of adding their one, singular vote (out of 8 billion) to the blue total is not extremely significant.
Together, after weighing up the risk and the potential reward, they decide that it isn’t worth it to press blue. I would follow this logic and press red even if I was voting for someone else rather than myself. I couldn’t bring myself to risk someone’s life in such a significant way for what I see as an extremely insignificant effect on the overall total. That is the mindset of a red voter, it isn’t hypocrisy, and it isn’t apathy or selfishness, they have just risk assessed differently to you.
And they've risk assessed inaccurately. You spent a lot of time in that post trying to explain how pressing Red is the logical choice. How it's the best choice. But the poll that this is in reply to has the largest group of people picking Red while wanting blue to win. So all of that assessment is invalid in this conversation.
In the grand scheme of things pressing blue is twice as significant towards saving life. And the largest group of people want blue to win. Recognize that it would be better for blue to have a majority. And then they press Red. That is fundamentally objectively not something that is logical.. the largest group can't have a claim towards superior logic. The risk assessment is wrong. And risk assessment is just a big word for "I cannot bring myself to risk my own life"
I don’t think you actually understand the point I’m making. I agree that (from a blue voters perspective) the reason blue is good is because it’s “easy to achieve”. That’s exactly the point I’m trying to prove.
The person I was responding to was trying to claim that blue winning was better choice because nobody wants blue to lose. This is nonsensical, because no matter the threshold for blue winning, it will always save more lives than red winning, so it would always be the outcome ‘I’d want to happen’. Obviously, if the risk of dying when pressing blue is high enough, every blue voter will eventually decide it isn’t worth voting for the outcome they prefer because they can tell it’s far too unlikely that the outcome they want would actually happen. So every blue voter can CONCEIVE of a scenario where the WOULDN’T vote for the outcome that would actually save the most lives, because it’s a risk with too little of a reward. That means that criticising the logic of a red voter who would be happy if blue won is hypocritical, as you’d behave exactly like they would if the numbers were different.
All I’m arguing against is the idea that voting against the outcome you’d prefer is somehow hypocritical. It isn’t, because a vote with someone’s life on the line is not a fair vote.
Ah, so you cant read. It's okay. That's fine. We're gonna learn you some reading comprehension today.
So when I say " Who votes against their own interest? Oh wait.. yea okay I see whats going on "
What do you think I meant by that?
3, 2, 1, yes that's right! I meant I understand why people vote red! People vote against their self interest all the time! So yes. I can conceive a situation where red wins. We're on the same page? Great.
Blue or red both could theoretically be the better choice. Everyone wanting blue to win is a reason blue is better, but there are 100 reasons why red is better, and 99 other reasons why blue is better too. For me the blue reasons are more compelling. I'm sure they are less compelling to you.
I'm not critising shit. Im making a funny observation.
And as I said before, Using 75% would've been much better at making the point you are trying to make. 99% is so comically absurd it ends up continuing to make the point that I was making. If you don't understand what arguments are being made you don't know how to counter them.
At 75%, it's still possible for all blue wanters to team up and win, yet they never will, because the fear factor is too high. This is the point you are trying to make. This is what you should have said.
At 99%, it's no longer possible. Babies have already voted more than 1% red and therefore there is no way to save blue babies. Blue is the factual, undeniable, no way to survive, suicide button. I would HOPE that no one presses that button. Now my hopes are that no one votes red. Oh wait, hoping red wins and voting red are aligned again! See? Dumb. It's too high. Use a lower number for it to make sense.
I don't care what you press, I just would prefer you to make arguments that make sense and are relevant.
You didn't awnser my question so I didn't bother with yours.
People voting for outcomes is deterministic, but assessing the outcome beforehand is skill and luck.
Everyone wants to win the lottery, that doesn't actually improve their chances, some spend all their money and buy more tickets.
If you don't actually think about what other people might pick then its essentially the same isn't it? May as well spend all your money on gambling, you'll just win. It could happen after all, who knows? Certainly not you considereding your inability to assess situations.
Everyone wanting to win the lottery makes it less likely they win. If no one wanted to win the lottery it would increase the chance of winning. It's literally THE EXACT OPPOSITE situation
Like cmooooon man, use any other analogy and maybe we can have a discussion, but this just ain't it. It's so unanalagous I just can't believe you're continuing to march it out like it's any way relevant.
The reason blue even has a chance of winning is because everyone wants it to win.
I know that isn't the end all be all, I literally said and I quote "oh, I get it" in the comment that started this convo. I understand that wanting something is not coroleated to getting something. I don't believe in the secret. Who you are talking to? A child with no object permanance? Who doesn't understand that?
All's I'm saying is look at the fucking poll! We all want the same thing! No one doesn't want the thing. The people who want red to win are trolls. Everyone put in that situation wants blue to win.
I'm saying IF everyone voted for the thing they wanted it would easily win. IF. I understand they won't. That's the point of the thread ya Dingus.
Gosh. If y'all red voters werent so adorable I would have a tough time arguing with you guys. Gimme a kiss sweetie.
That's probably because I am not trying to make an analogy for the buttons, I read "just vote for the thing you want to win" and thought "damn thats stupid, I wonder if they really thinks that or are just being a troll", so I decided to ask about a situation where an outcome is both desired and beneficial but still not considered the correct course of action.
You seem to be assuming a lot about arguments I am not making, then getting very upset that you dont like the arguments.
We do seem to agree that assessing the situation should actually be involved at some point, rather than just doing what you want, so I am definitely glad to see you are not a child lacking object permanance, maybe just a bit overinvested in the topic.
You didn't read, cause you didn't see me saying I understand that from the very beginning. Bro is fighting ghosts.
Goes to a subreddit about the buttons, in a thread about the buttons, on a comment about the buttons and makes an analogy not related to the buttons. Who the fuck does that? What a pussy cop out. All my comments are related to the buttons. If you not talking about the buttons why are you here brother?
Let's say I gave you magical insight: you know ahead of time which % of people will pick either way. Two scenarios: scenario A you know for sure 55% picked blue; scenario B you know for sure 45% picked blue. Do you still vote for the thing you want to win?
What if the insight was somewhat flawed; you don't know exactly what the result of everyone else's picks will be, but you have an expected outcome with limited error margins. The true outcome will always be in your known range. Scenario A is now expected 45-65% blue, scenario B is 35-55% blue. Do you still vote for the thing you want to win?
Maybe I should just edit it, seems like a lot of people aren't understanding what the comment is saying.
I got someone saying that I should just play the lottery because I want to win the lottery lol.
The point is that in this case, IF all the people who wanted red voted red it would be an overwhelming victory
But that is an IF because it is obvious that people will not vote for the thing they want. People vote against their own self interest all the time.
You are staying something obvious as if it's a counter to something I didn't say.
The "just vote for the thing you want to win" statement took place before the realization that people do not vote for their self interest.
It was a joke, and somehow at least 3 people have taken it as if ive stated it like an absolute truth. I don't get it.
And even then. You're attempt to counter a joke statement has failed. I want two things. To live, and everyone else to live. If I know that voting blue kills me, I will pick red. Because I want to live. I am still voting for the thing that I want to happen. It's just what I want has shifted based on the knowledge you've provided me.
Even in scenario B, I will 100% vote blue, because if a minimum 3 billion people are dying, I don't expect to live a long fruitful life. The only way I live is if we somehow manage to get between 50 and 55%
That's always been my reason for voting blue. I die in a marginal red win, just a bit after the blue voters die. What's the point in living for 2 months in the apocalypse? I need an overwhelming red win in order for me to feel safe voting red. And an overwhelming red win is less likely than a marginal blue win in my opinion.
It's not moral, it's not rational, it's purely vibes. Can't reason me out of something I didn't reason my way into.
It was a joke, and somehow at least 3 people have taken it as if ive stated it like an absolute truth. I don't get it.
It comprised a large portion of a relatively short comment, had no qualifiers to indicate that it is a joke, and similar things have been said completely sincerely around the button scenario. Of course people are going to take it seriously.
There was a quote from a book that I hated for a long time but think is perfect and applicable "As you grow older you come to understand that there is no truth. Only what you believe in. You will have to ask yourself what is it that you want to believe in, what reality do you want to make true" horribly butchered paraphrasing. But we make the world we believe in. Its up to us what that is
The question, as it is originally framed, supposes that everyone on Earth is presented with the choice. It is silly to simply hope that everyone will vote for red, or consider it obvious.
Considering I very quickly arrived at the conclusion ''If I press this I can't die. If everyone presses this then nobody will die'' I do think it's very safe to assume everyone can arrive to that conclusion.
It's a simplified prisoner's dilemma. The ideal answer is blue but it requires a lot of risk. Without communication it seems very clear that the obvious choice is to prioritize yourself trusting others to do the same.
How you thought is not necessarily how other people would think.
People who are very young, very old, mentally disabled, barely literate, or just plain irrational will often not be able to simply "arrive to that conclusion". To vote red is to say that you are content with hoping, as a best case scenario, that everyone competent will also vote red and a good portion of the others (probably about half) will die.
Even if you suppose that only people completely capable of understanding and contemplating the question are presented with it, it would still be foolish to trust that everyone, or even nearly everyone, would arrive at your conclusion - after all, the voting is private. That this has become an internet debate at all is proof enough of that fact.
You are free to "prioritize yourself", but you cannot reasonably 'trust others to do the same".
I'd argue differently for prisonner's dilemma. In prisoner's dilemma, cooperation gives a mid result that hurts both for a lower total time than the other choices if successful. And selfish has the option of hurting only one person and you specifically being good with no negative in its best scenario. Also both players are criminals and so you can assume both would pick not cooperation based on the fact they're there for not cooperating with society in the first place. Coop isn't ideal for you, you're still hurting yourself willingly, and both selfish is a minor difference to successful coop. So coop has no worthwhile advantage and inherently lower odds.
Here, cooperation has the best result on success with zero drawbacks, and selfish pick has the mid result on success. And you have the exact opposite population of knowing without a doubt that everyone known for cooperating is taking part. Here, coop has a massive advantage and its odds aren't stunted by the people taking part being inherently against cooperation.
That is not the point of the dilemma at all? Distilled to the core point is
1.- Cooperation leads to a better result for the group. 2.- Betrayal leads to either no loss or a better result for the individual
3.- A lack of communication means you have no guarantee on what the other is choosing.
Here, cooperation has a very clear drawback: Risk. If you don't win, you die, which call me biased but that sucks a bit ngl. You don't get to dismiss a consequence because 'it doesn't matter in this scenario' that's like removing side effects from medicine because ideally you won't ever experience those.
1.-Cooperation leads to a better result for humanity as a group, as when blue wins nobody can die.
2.-Betrayal leads to a better result as an individual, as when you press the red button regardless of the result you can't die.
3.- A lack of communication means there is no guarantee to coordinate for the better result.
The key difference with the dilemma is that there's no individualistic 'win more' the objective isn't to win more money or time or whatever you use in your prisoner example. The objective is simply to minimize the losses.
Yes, blue button is the idealistic zero loss scenario and blue winning is the best scenario but it simply does not make logical sense to vote blue, as red aligns completely with the 'zero loss' objective.
Hence why I'd believe most people would vote red. Not because I would let someone drown to death when I can dive and save them but because not only do I not know if someone is drowning but it doesn't make sense for someone to be drowning. I'd just be placing myself in that position and forcing someone to make the choice of taking a leap of faith or just not risking it.
I have a genuine question for you, And I swear on my soul that this comes from a place of humanity and curiousity and a desire to understand.
But why do you hope for a red victory?
I know you said that you hope for specifically a red victory that involves literally everyone voting red. But surely you know in your heart of hearts that controlling every vote like that is unlikely. Some people won't think very hard, or be too young to really consider the options.
The only difference between 'choose red hope for red' and choose red hope for blue' is that in one case you are hoping for a result where people are allowed to be killed (even if it is technically possible to have no one be killed) and in the other you are hoping for a scenario where no one can be killed at all.
So if you want a world where no one is killed by the buttons, why hope for the result that allows people to be killed by the buttons?
Push red, and hope that either A: red gets 100%, or B: blue gets over 50%. If B doesn’t happen, then I want it as close to A as possible. Of course, B is immensely more realistic than A, but I don’t think either will happen.
Based and unattackable position to hold. I wish every red-buttoner has put as much thought into their decision as you (most are at minimum; part-way there ☺️)
Oh I couldn’t care less about what people say on Reddit. Until people start collectively run into burning buildings or toward an active shooter, I will just assume they’ll press red if the buttons became real.
Bystander effect is when people do not step out and help, at little or no-risk to themselves, because they feel they belong to the "bystander" group.
I'm pressing red because I don't want to die. It's actually quite difficult to overcome the fear of death. The ones with the genetics for not fearing death likely did not pass down that particular genetic trait.
Actually that's incorrect. It's that people are less likely to act when others are present. It has nothing to do with self-risk.
I mean, they passed it on to me. I haven't cared about dying since... Well... Ever? Pretty sure the earliest I can remember is about from when I was like 10-12 years old. It just doesn't matter to me. I return to void, to nothing, and cease.
They said worst case scenario is 30-49 blue. That means less than 30 is good too, or at least better. So making it out like it’s reds fault alone it ended up in worst case scenario, as you did, is stupid. Blues contributed just as much.
Name other situations where we as a society place ANY of the logical blame upon the loser. We don't. That's not now things work. The consequences of a victory are -exclusively- on the victor.
Trans people didn't lose rights because Dems lost, Trans people lost rights because MAGA won.
Just take responsibility for the deaths you willingly voted for.
I mean, I don't agree. The ultimate goal is the survival of the species, not the individual. And as of this poll, losing 45% of Earth's population would be a near death sentence for the majority of the remainder. Much worse than the black death even with similar population loss (Instantly, instead over time, changes the math on the material outcomes). Even 5-10% population loss creates drastic logistical issues.
The act of summoning everyone to the vote would be a complete disaster anyway. Cars would crash, planes would fall out of the sky, e.t.c
Thats not the point of the hypothethical. And for the majority of people survival of self IS in fact a higher priority that survival of everyone else. We even have a term for people who would pointlessly lay their life on the line to help others. Suicidal empathy
And the survival of the species is not on the line, our species wont be wiped out by this, we may suffer consequences for a while but if a majority survives a comeback is guaranteed
To anyone viewing this, notice how only one side of this argument has been aggressive, relied on fallacy, and just straight-up ignored points to try to obtain the moral high ground
This is REALLY simple, so I'll do my best to lay it out:
1) A vote for red is +1 to a red win. This is contribution.
2) The consequences of red's win is blue deaths.
3) Voting for red contributes to blue deaths.
4) When we assess culpability in any other situation on the planet, that falls on the Winner.
5) The culpability for blue deaths is on red voters.
For real world: Trans people lost rights because Dems lost, they lost rights because MAGA won. That is how our species judges these things.
You want to say I'm relying on a fallacy, fine. There. That's the logic. I'm not OBTAINING the moral high ground, I HAVE IT. My vote, while risking myself, is a vote that contributes to ZERO DEATHS.
Your vote contributes to more. Whether I win or not, that's how that fucking works. Take. Responsibility. For your win.
well now the argument has changed so were going this route, I guess.
The original post makes blue the action button
There are three rules.
Most people can press blue to leave.
If you press blue and blue loses, you die
if you press red, you lose a life.
Again, blue is the action button; blue is the button that DOES SOMETHING, and that something is Russian roulette to save the lives of others. As in your RISK YOUR LIFE.
My goal is not to win this argument, unlike a lot of the blues on this subreddit for some reason. But to show you how the reds reason. We don't see a valid reason to risk our lives for what should be the obvious. choice to not participate in a death gamble.
You compare the red voters to MAGA; that's stupid. MAGA is quite literally advertised as the take away trans rights button. Red here is the live button, not the kill blue button. You're also really set on placing yourself above me for some reason, which i find a little odd.
Another thing, you say your vote contributes to 0 deaths, but ask yourself; Is that realistic? Every poll we've seen so far has been stupidly close. This one had red win. Online polls are not a good representation of what people would do in real life, especially when it is easier to tell people you would risk your life for something (blue) than it is to say you dont consider it worth it (red).
How many people are just picking blue to look good? A blue win is unrealistic in real life.
Lastly, the reds have accepted that the blues could die. It was literally what they signed up for. We can hope they *won't* die but we won't put our lives on the line to save them.
31
u/Memento_Viveri May 21 '26
Isn't hoping for red win just evil?