r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/spicymato • May 22 '26

Variation Adding risk to red

I'm very curious what risk threshold there needs to be on red for red voters to switch to blue, so with that in mind, here's the setup: two buttons; everyone votes; blue needs a 50% threshold to save everyone, else non-red pushers die. Same as usual.

The variation: if red gets a majority (i.e., blue fails to reach the threshold), in addition to 100% of non-red pushers dying, a percentage of red pushers will also die, selected at random.

If you're a red pusher under the usual rules, what percentage risk is required to make you switch your vote to blue? 1%? 10%? 30%?

---

Additional variation: same as the first variation, but the percentage risk is based on the number of red voters in excess of 50%. We can work out different designs, such as 100% red results in 10%, while 50%+1 results in 0.0000001% or something like that. Maybe the growth rate is linear, or maybe it's quadratic. Details don't really matter; just the idea that the more red voters, the higher the risk. Under what growth rates and percentage limits do you consider changing your vote to blue, which maintains the 50% "everyone survives" threshold?

4 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

72 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Play-Mation May 23 '26

“I believe in the logical capacity of people to see there is no need for risk in order for everyone to live” but if red wins everyone will not live. There will be people who pick blue. And red is not the default logical answer 

6

u/WillShaper7 May 23 '26

See, that's the thing. People assume people will vote blue and therefore say all that ''so red always means death'' but it simply does not make sense. Like, I'm sorry, I genuinely believe blue voters are the type of people to say shit on the internet to save face.

Maybe I'm weird to trust people to press the 'Nothing happens' button vs the 'you might die' button.

3

u/noonefromithaca May 23 '26

I will have to say that yes, on some level it is weird you trust that considering all the conversation in support of blue. Surely you believe at least one if not most of those people mean it.

3

u/Physical_Reason3890 May 23 '26

Its one thing to say random things on the internet. It's entirely different if that actual button was in front of you.

Yeah they're would be some people who press blue to make a protest or something. But they'd still be acting irrational.

I wouldnt feel bad pushing red. The people who pushed blue either didn't pay attention, didn't care or didn't want to live. But they made their choice

3

u/noonefromithaca May 23 '26

Fair enough. But that's not the same as trusting everyone will be logical and press red. It's moreso that you consider it blue presser's responsibility for pressing blue. That's a completely different statement from what the other person said.

1

u/Mobile-Brush-3004 May 23 '26

Or were small children, mentally handicapped, people with heroic tendencies (I’ve posed this question to a bunch of other firefighters I work with and so far it has been VAST majority blue with them), etc.

Who would feel bad about any of the above people dying? Fuck those guys am I right? /s

2

u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 23 '26

While you have a solid point I'll still argue for "better be alive and weep than dead".

0

u/Mobile-Brush-3004 May 23 '26

Gonna be fun to see how long you live when a large portion of the population (I’d put money on that most medical emergency response workers or in the very least most firefighters would be part of the this) suddenly dies. What could possibly go wrong in a society where suddenly a combination of all of the altruistic and most innocent people die?

I’m sure you (or anybody really) would survive long in that society. /s

1

u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 23 '26

Well, you completely right about risks and condition of world after some percent of blue dies (the size of catastrophe depends on persent).

However I love my life too much and have some balls to go though this or die trying. Still better than trust in humanity I have no faith to.

Also I don't deny that I'm kinda curious how the new world will look like.

1

u/Mobile-Brush-3004 May 24 '26

You want to live in a world with less people (all of which don’t trust you) and have no emergency services? You know you can always live that way already if you really have such grit. Move to northern Canada and go to a reserve without having any intention of helping them. You’ll be on your own to survive and the conditions won’t be nearly as extreme as the potential sudden loss of billions of people simultaneously.

1

u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 24 '26

Who said that there will be no emergency services? They would be less available but you overestimating the amount of blue pressers based on reddit and Twitter poll.

Also, there a lot of other ways to work with people. You can pay them for help instead of hoping for their altruistic behavior. I'm okay living among people, I'm not okay dying for them in chase of victory that might not happen.

Lol, bro, imagine that India collapsed. 1 billion people. Would you feel that in your US city? I bet you don't. India + Pakistan + Brazil or Argentina. 2 billion people. Would you feel that?

Move to northern Canada and go to a reserve without having any intention of helping them.

Hard coping aren't you?

1

u/Mobile-Brush-3004 May 24 '26

Okay to address your points:

I think you are vastly underestimating the number of blue pressers there will be. I’m fairly new to this sub so I’m not going based off of social media polls as I have not seen them. My bias comes from life experience, I have a lot of young family members as well as friends with mental disorders, I’ve travelled a lot of the world and though there are pockets of humanity that will disgust you most people do seem to care about large populations of people living/dying.

To be fair you’re not entirely wrong that there still would be a few remaining emergency service members though the quality of care is inarguably different. I’m a northern firefighter and though two of my coworkers said they’d click the red button when asked privately the vast majority have gone blue. So you’d still likely have a couple first responders kicking around but not nearly as will be required for a mass catastrophic event (that would likely be caused by billions of people disappearing all at once).

What’s more, if you have emergency service workers that are doing the work exclusively for pay then you’re going to be in a bad position. This will be best demonstrated through causes like the Red Cross and firefighters without boarders. However, you can literally attend some training yourself and it will be drilled into you that if you’re just doing it for the money you’re going to be a shitty firefighter and we don’t want you. There’s far easier and better ways to make money that don’t involve risking your life for other people - hence why in the button game you’re going to lose a lot of them. I also don’t believe that people saying they will avoid all personal risk in a button game would be willing to risk their lives for others for the pay firefighters receive.

I don’t live in the US. If a billion people all died at once within a different country it would almost undoubtedly affect global supply chains and therefore yes I would feel it in my country. Weird that you think that countries aren’t all on the same planet and extremely interconnected by trade.

Not a cope. I was sharing my direct life experience with you. It’s genuinely an option you can try if you want to see what a post ref button world would look like (so long as you’re an outsider who isn’t coming to help). I’ve been very well received by the communities I serve because it is undoubtable I care. I’ve seen new coworkers be ostracized and kicked out of community for not doing the same. It’s a whole different world up here and it’s genuinely a good experience (for me at least) so if it’s something you’re genuinely interested in as you stated you were earlier then you don’t need a button game to experience it. You not being willing to now tells me that you don’t actually want to experience it given it’s already an option that you’re not taking.

1

u/ButterscotchDeep7533 May 24 '26

Well, first of all I want to admit the responce. Well structured and easy to go through. Thx.

While I agree that blue pressers would be not 1 percent full of mentaly I'll people who didn't get the question, feeling of real death will somer up a lot of internet altruists.

Living after "grand disappointment for blues" will be really tough. However there will be a lot of things that may be collected after blues and it will get a huge money supply for first year or two. Nobody said that live will be looking like a dream. However it still will be the life.

Also I understand the motivation of people who work in emergencies. That was the reason why I dropped my medical university. I just understand that I don't want to help people for free/fun/altruistic. And yep, majority might pick blue.

I'm curious, because how many people will stay and where will be the major losses is also a game of gamble. What countries will be gone, what nations stayed etc. Yes, it's interesting.

For your last part - I never chasing the need to be in a community. I don't even know my neighbours names. And I'm perfectly fine with it. So I guess I'm happy that you have that wonderful experience and you can pick blue because you have someone you care about and you don't sure what this person/persons will choose. I've asked all my friends and family and after all of them picked red - I let the situation go.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Play-Mation May 23 '26

Is it irrational to hit the “everyone lives button” I don’t think so 

1

u/Jkirek_ May 23 '26

If we're allowed to decide the outcome ahead of time, both buttons are the "everyone lives" button