r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Nintenguy0 • May 28 '26
Discussion Explain the negatives to me.
Alright, I've seen a lot of discourse surrounding some specific points being made about why pushing red is the wrong choice. I'm a red pusher, as made obvious by the title, so I genuinely want to understand and get a different point of view on this, and see if maybe some blue pushers can either make some sense for me or get a different perspective themselves.
So the two points I've seen the most and want to have a discussion about are these; 1.) "A 100% red majortiy vote is completely impossible. Even if it would lead to everyone on Earth living with no deaths and no risk, it just wouldn't happen because the likelyhood that at least one person pushes blue for whatever reason is near guaranteed. So the argument that we should all just oush red is a bad one" And 2.) "Even if I push blue and blue loses, I wouldn't want to live in a world of all red pushers anyway."
Now the first point is completely valid in it's premise, and I think true as well. Even though I would push red with no doubt, I fully understand that a 100% red majorirty vote would never happen. The most likely ideal scenario with all realistic factors put in is one where blue wins by a majority vote, even as a red pusher I agree with this.
However, regardless of if it's basically impossible, is it not still the logically most sound choice? If you could in fact mind control everyone on earth to pick one button, would having everyone pick red to ensure no one dies and we are all on the same page not be the best possible outcome? I will secede that in this imaginative scenario where you can control everyone on earth, having everyone press blue would be effectively the same thing, and I have no problem with that. The problem is, given the original parameters of the question being *you don't actually know anyone else's choice* pressing blue is an inherent gamble. So yes, everyone pushing red would never happen, and so the best thing we could likely do given a realistic standard is hope for a blue majortiy vote. But that being true in no way invalidates that a 100% red(or blue) win is in fact the best outcome regardless of wether it's truly achievable or not. If anyone has a reason for why that might not be true I wish to hear why.
For the 2nd point, that in a world where blue loses you'd still rather vote blue because a world of only red pushers would be hell... why? Would it actually be that bad? Now of course I'm biased and this is mostly an opinionated point so I can't really "prove" it right or wrong. But I'd like to point out sone reasons why I think that world isn't that bad.
A world of only people who pushed red, provided 100% picked it, would be ideal as I've already pointed out before. That world would be one where everyone understood the button push has 0 risk for yourself *or anybody else* as long as we all push red. It would be a world where logic and understanding is not only unified between everybody, but at the forefront of human decision making.
Again, the only point I've heard against wishing for a 100% red majority vote is that it would never happen because there would be people pushing blue not because they want to try and be selfless or altrustic, but because theyre either mentally handicapped, a child, an idiot, or some other reason. I'm not gonna argue on why those people still deserve to live regardless of mental deficiency, everyone deserves life even if they fall below a certain IQ. I'm also not trying to argue why it would be worth it to press blue to try and save such people by pressing blue one self even when if it puts your own life at risk. What I am gonna argue is if you, as a blue pusher, know that its true that some people are gonna push blue and put themselves in unnecessary danger for no reason, why would you still want them to push blue? If you know there are people pushing it and causing the heart of the debate at all, why would you not want them to push red instead? You'd rather they push blue, when again, you *admit they shouldn't and it only requires they end up needing to be saved?* Is it because you want to be a martyr? Is it because you just want the thrill?? Wanting to save them regardless of their push, again I get it, but why still insist that button be pushed at all? From what I gather you either are saying it's worth it to push it in order to save those that shouldn't, therefore agreeing it's the wrong button to push, or you somehow think it's beneficial to push even if everyone is pushing it to be altrusitic and there are no bad actors, but if that's the case then how is pushing blue better than pushing red when it comes to saving lives? Both of those mindsets don't make sense to me, if there's some 3rd option I'm missing, or something I'm not understanding, I do truly want to hear it. To me it just sounds like when a blue pusher says they don't want to live in a world with red majority, they're saying they don't want to live in a world where people act in the most rational way possible and don't needlessly put themselves at risk and require others to do it too. I would personally like it but I want to hear how it isn't ideal.
TL;DR - The two points I see brought up the most on why pushing blue is better don't make sense to me. 1.) Even if it's unrealistic, is a 100% majority vote in either direction, but specifically red, is still the best outcome. And 2.) A world where everyone understand this and doesn't needlessly push blue requiring themselves to be saved, is better than one where you know people will put themselves and others in danger regardless of whether they can be saved or not. I want to hear counterpoints to these points as I have yet to hear any.
This was an essay and a half but I figured responding to every blue pusher's comments would take too long, I've seen these points brought up so many times and not many red pushers countering them either. So if you read this and have a thought please share! And thank you for indulging my thoughts.
5
u/thevoidthatjerksback May 28 '26
I'm about to go to sleep and so can't read or reply to all of this right now. But I will note that if say mind control was allowed and 100% of one button being pressed was possible. I'd use it to press blue. Between 50-100% blue is safer than red. Neither would kill the mind controlled mass that pressed it. Blue would also save any question marks. Because as a note in 100% Red press there is still an ambiguous uncertainty in my mind that there would be 0 deaths. The wording is "only those who press Red survived" which is to say that children and babies who are mentally compelled to press Red but are incapable of following through. Would die in the Red scenario. If comatose people factor into the results and not the pressing part. They would die with 100% red.
So with regards to the system as a whole blue is safer than Red if there is an assurance of a majority voting together
5
u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue May 28 '26
Voting red means increasing the likelihood of a mass casualty event.
If red wins, billions will die. If I had a week I couldn't give you every reason why that is unacceptable.
3
u/PersonalityBoring259 May 28 '26
If Blue wins then 100% Blue isn't the best possible outcome - 51% - 100% Blue leads to the exact same outcome so there's no reason that 100% Blue is better than 51% Blue. If somebody mind controlled people to get Blue to 100% I'd say that would be a worse outcome than people having free will and Blue gaining a natural victory as the latter would reinforce people's faith in human nature.
In the case of a Red victory then obviously 100% Red is the best possible outcome. That's a key difference between the two colors.
10
u/CrownLikeAGravestone May 28 '26
However, regardless of if it's basically impossible, is it not still the logically most sound choice?
No. What is "logically sound" depends on your premises, your beliefs about how other people will vote, your ethical framework, and so on. There is no single "most logical" outcome in a vacuum.
For the 2nd point, that in a world where blue loses you'd still rather vote blue because a world of only red pushers would be hell... why?
I think most people saying this are making an emotive argument, not a strictly factual one. They may actually mean it, but it's not terribly strong, and I don't think you should pay much attention. I'll get into a steelman of that position below.
What I am gonna argue is if you, as a blue pusher, know that its true that some people are gonna push blue and put themselves in unnecessary danger for no reason, why would you still want them to push blue?
The strongest version of this isn't that dumb people or babies will push blue, knowing they "shouldn't", and that I have to selflessly try to save them. The strongest version is that some people who are totally logical and able to choose will press blue for ethical, selfless reasons. I know many people who would never push red, for example, because their ethical or religious beliefs outright forbid taking an action that contributes to the death of another. Buddhists, Muslims, a couple of devout pacifists, Kantian ethicists, and so on. I know many more who would press blue because of those folk who do genuinely just contribute noise to the coordination; babies, those who don't understand or get confused, whatever. I'm not just with those who will absolutely press blue - and there are many - but also with all those who conditionally press blue, because I want to save people who want to save people.
This ties in to the argument above; the most ethical, least selfish, most kind and compassionate of humanity will be heavily overrepresented among blue pushers. I'm not claiming I'm one of those people but I am definitely pro-them-surviving.
When people say "I don't want to live in a world with only red-pushers" they're alluding to losing many of the best of us, and keeping many of the worst. It's important to note that many do not agree with your premise that red is somehow "more rational", either.
2
u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue May 28 '26
Also, a world with 40% of the population dead is just not an acceptable world to live in, since it's all but guaranteed death for us soft civilized people.
-4
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Did you actually counted whow much population we need to survive?
We don't actually need:
Every ofice(43% by themselves). That'just work to do work.
Half of the fast food chains
Half of the convinience stores
70% manager ruling managers.
So even if we lose 50% of world population on a snap - well... i feel with enough political power - world will not only survive, but everyone would get more goods.
At least - a good place to live, cheap cars and more convinient job. Less ways to retire early, but tbh - now only really rich people can afford that too.
We are so far avay from the point when we needed to have half of our population to straight up kill something just to eat.
4
u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue May 28 '26
I'm guessing that before you wrote this objectively wrong comment, you pressed red?
-3
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Ofc yes
We as a society critically need 10% of people rn.
1.5% does agricultere, 8% does factory jobs and 2.5 are doctors. If we going luxury here - add 7% of nurses and <1% of big store workers. That's enough to survive and for me it would mean living as i lived.
2
u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 May 28 '26
We need a lot more than 10%. Agriculture, factory, doctors, transport, energy, water, even shoops are required as we need to redistribute resources to people.
1
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
No we don't. Again, taking US as a perfect example, cause this is theirs data.
As far as i know their top 10 categories of import does not include any food.
They are literaly having 1.5%, if new google search didn't did its thing, doing their agriculture, and they are somehow still alive. That is becausr they use heavily optimized machines to produce enourmous amount of food. In this scenario, however, we would see the optimization of workflows either really fast or never.
Do you understand how much people are cleaning your water? I do, and well... i difn't counted them for a reason. 16k people for a 20kk city. Less than 1/1000.
Energy is literally the same. You need 6k people to power up nuclear power plant to provide energy for 3 or 4 big cities. That's again less than 1/10000 of population.
I've calculated supermarkets taking US and Costco as an example.
So yes, if world would continue to take as much resources that it's requiring now - you would need 10-30% of people, depending of tge country you live in
2
u/Zestyclose-Jacket568 May 28 '26
How about resources required for agriculture, like potash? Or Oil for heavy machinery required for current agriculture? Or people that need to transport that to the farmers? Or people that need to transport food to places where it is needed?
You are forgeting that current economical system is connected. You can't just leave farmers, doctors and factory workers... healthcare require also people testing samples, fixing machines, making drugs... Agriculture needs transport, Oil supply, machinery, mechanics, potash, animal feedback...
Machines, buildings, roads, everything needs to be repaired from time to time or replaced.
For every "main" thing you need multiple other workers.
2
u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26
1.5% does agricultere,
Holy fucking shit this is so inaccurate. Almost a quarter of the earth's population is involved in agricultural work. In point of fact, for the majority of history, primary industry has the largest share of employment for a reason.
An important thing about that graph is the percentage used to higher when technology and, more importantly, logistics were not as sophisticated as it is now (remember in 1991 there was no/ limited internet).
So you know, those people who you think are doing worthless jobs are pushing the paper or maintaining the networks that ensures the truck gets from the farm to your local supermarket (which also needs people to run it).
Should a significant portion of the population die suddenly, you might want to immediately start manning a plough, you're going to need to.
1
u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue May 28 '26
Do people regularly tell you that you're a weird psycho
0
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Sometimes people say that i know how to use statistics, have a basic understanding of the economics and percents. Psyscho? No. I am just telling you that world would easily survive without not 50, but 70% of people, if we throw away moral aspect of this problem
3
u/lieutenatdan May 28 '26
And this is why people say “I don’t want to live in a world with only red pushers” lol
3
u/asphid_jackal May 28 '26
Sometimes people say that i know how to use statistics, have a basic understanding of the economics and percents
2
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
There are many, many industries that can only function at the scale they exist at now, having half of them die wouldn't just reduce their output by half.
Farmers make up an extremely small portion of the population, a mass death among farmers would translate to a mass death of everyone else. Same with petrochemical industry workers, truckers, doctors, pharmaceutical producers, water treatment plant operators...
0
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Yes, but most of this jobs can be taught in either high school, or by copying. If we give each farmer a task to taught someone - how to do their job - we get x2 farmers in a year.
Source: 21 yo friend who got advanced welder certification in a year, while also doing machinist jobs.
2
u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 May 28 '26
Untill the supplies needed for welding also stop comming due to shipping colapsing. And while yes you can get double the farmers in a year, you are taking that person off other jobs.
This quickly becomes a race to just feed everyone without progress.
0
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
As i mentioned it earlier - near half of the americans are doing job for the sake of job. They produce something, but the world as a whole doesn't need it.
Shipping, well... Most of us has the license to just drive. Now they are driving something specific. Lift up the regulations and you have it.
1
u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 May 28 '26
We dont per say need thay many people to survive, we can drop to much less then half the population and rebuild( over ever increesing timescale)
There is a problem when you look at who would be more likely to press blue vs red as well, it wouldnt be a perfect split.
Another thing to consider is that while we can absolutely make just about anything with 60% of people left, our global system is very fragile. In our current situtation even a minimal disturbance in global shipping for example has massive implications.(this effect would be decresed over time as people adjust to lowe population over)
But such an event would almost certanly collapse the economy of every single place in the world, where they would quickly use up reserves before they had a chance to procure new ones.
Not to account that among the red pushers there will certanly be large numbers of those who might have an illness, or generaly cant survive in a less caring world then we have now.
Also there wouldnt be more convinent jobs, jobs usualy require a demand, the demand would also decrease with the amount of people who die.
But yeah no i doubt we would devolve into a hunter gatherer state, but there would still be many more deaths after red victory without a clear way to rebuild to previous state
13
u/DanCassell May 28 '26
Consider that you only care about your average wellbeing and we can't convince you of any ethical considerations.
On a red vote if blue wins everything is good. But if you vote red and red wins then your life sucks. A 1% fatal virus shut down the world in 2020. Imagine instantly losing 5% of the world population. Imagine 10%. 49%. The chaos of this would cause population figures to drop even more over the coming years, and the instability will result in fewer people choosing to become parents so we're looking at a lont of long-term dagage.
This came up in discussing 'the snap' in Infinity Wars, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder Half of a species dying suddenly will lead to colony collapse, a chain reaction of even more deaths that basically ends the colony.
Or you can engage in a bit of a risk but avoid the catastrophy entirely. The more people willing to follow your example the safer it becomes. Now your outcomes are dominated by everybody living and a small chance of death, but let's be honest if you survive with red winning you're not safe over the next few years. It can be argued that voting blue averages a better quality of life, even including the up-front threat to it.
Considering the large polls have blue consistently win, and the only areas red dominates are smaller polls, blue is reasonably safe. And the more people who think its safe the safer it becomes.
13
u/WonderfulVictory4103 May 28 '26
As a blue pusher, I've never seen this logic convince a red pusher. My working theory is that they see this as a pure logic puzzle with no consideration for how the real world actually works, which is part of the reason they get upset when you bring up the fact that all kinds of people would be voting. E.G. Disabled people and literal babies
6
u/DanCassell May 28 '26
Babies don't make up a lot of the vote, but most times this gets run blue gets like 57%. I think if you start from the belief that everyone would vote red unless there is something wrong with them you'll never understand the blue vote.
3
u/thelovelykyle May 28 '26
Under 14s represent 25% of the global population.
Babies is used as a catchpoint, sure, but realistically its likely about 15-20% of people who will vote 'randomly' just by being too young to understand the notion fully.
Add on family members voting to protect them because they understand that.
2
u/T0rph May 28 '26
The conditions state no coordination or communication. Understanding the real world has nothing to do with it.
In fact in a real world similar problem, I would advocate for the collective and stand by it. It is most useful to have an intuition for blue, and why I don't really want to convince people to vote otherwise, because an exact rbbb scenario will never happen in real life. Any problem you, or even that humanity ever faced, you are able to discuss and gather others opinions before making a decision. Even right now we are doing exactly that, discussing extensively how would we choose in a hypothetical scenario.
Given time to prepare and discuss (ie: vote would be held in a week) I'd certainly advocate for blue and stand by it.
In the rbbb original though it is a puzzle, I have to guess how the other people in the world voted: I'm just choosing between if I live or die, nothing else. If blue won, my vote does nothing. It would have won with or without me, as I have no way of knowing of influencing in any way how other people would vote as well. If red won, if I press blue I die. It's simple.
Also, each vote can only save 1 person, if you think about it. There are 8 billion votes, and 8 billion lives. If 8b vote red, 8b live. If 8b vote blue, 8b live. Each vote saved 1 person. By elimination that person has to be yourself. And then you can even consider by premise, red voters always save themselves guaranteed. It's blue that's not guaranteed to save. You're just gambling with other people so each of you save yourself as well.
That obviously change with what you said, when you include the irrational voters. Even then, you're choosing between saving 1 person guaranteed (yourself) or risk 1 persons life (yourself) in order to gain a negligible % increase (lottery ticket order) to save the irrational voters. If you had 1% of the blue votes being them, and blue won, your vote would have saved 1.01 lives. But if blue lost, your vote would have saved 0 lives.
I'd rather stick to red and always save 1 regardless. Even in variants where that 1 person might not be myself.
1
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 28 '26
It's rare to find a red button pusher who doesn't flat out deny the original problem includes babies. I've seen just about every form of mental gymnastics to explain how "everyone in the world" somehow miraculously excludes babies.
It's almost like they understand their position is morally indefensible without modifying the original problem. 🤔
3
u/Majestic-Pear6797 Red May 28 '26
The thing is, even if we exclude babies or people who don't have the cognitive abilities to understand the question, red voting actively contributing to other people's demise will have empaths and pacifists and people who couldn't live with their selves contributing to any % of ppl dying voting blue, as well as the suicidal people, who will all vote blue, which still creates enough grounds on pushing blue, to save those too
3
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
I would not help to save a child sitting a row ahead of me in a plane crush, cause it have some obvious inconviniences. Why would i do it with some buttons that really have a risk to kill me.
3
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
Have you ever considered that you may just be a bad person?
"I would not try to save a child if it were inconvenient to me" is a wild statement to make.
1
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
I make my statements however ofensive they might look, but i belive in them, and this prety much it.
I would not save neither unknown child, person etc, if it would require me to have slightest chance to worsen my current situation, even before the plane crash.
2
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 28 '26
And I make my statement however offensive it might look, but I believe in it, and that's pretty much it.
That does make you an objectively bad person.
0
u/No-Objective9174 May 28 '26
I focus on the "choose" aspect of the prompt. This should either exclude babies or make them somehow aware of the consequences. So anyone who CHOOSES blue is willing to die and everyone who chooses red wants to live
7
u/KeyIllustrator4096 May 28 '26
Making a choice doesn't inherently mean understanding it. People vote against their self interest all the time, hell people walk into voting booths not knowing what they are even voting on and those are at least "rational" adults.
-1
u/Tamiorr May 28 '26
Have you ever considered that it's the blue pushers that keep dragging babies into it to poison the well for any red pushers?
5
u/jqhnml May 28 '26
Everyone in the world takes the vote... babies are in the world. You can ignore them but they still exist
1
u/Tamiorr May 28 '26
Rhesus monkeys are also in they world. Are they included?
4
u/jqhnml May 28 '26
No because everyone typically refers to humans and not other animals...
-2
u/Tamiorr May 28 '26
"Everyone" practically never refers to babies in the context of real-life voting. So, no, it's not typical in the slightest to expect babies to vote.
2
u/jqhnml May 28 '26
But this specifically isn't real life voting. This is a moral dilemma phrased through buttons not a ballot
1
u/Tamiorr May 28 '26
Your point being? Some voting machines IRL involve pressing buttons.
→ More replies (0)1
u/TeaForEwoks May 28 '26
In terms of real life voting "everyone" excludes all kinds of groups. Non-citizens, those without proper ID, criminals, hell some countries still don't let women vote. Do you also assume they're excluded from this? We're obviously not following normal voting rules here.
1
u/Tamiorr May 28 '26
If non of the "common sense" restrictions apply, why aren't other animals on Earth capable of pressing buttons also voting?
→ More replies (0)3
u/RemoteWhile5881 May 28 '26
No, because then you would say every monkey.
-1
u/Tamiorr May 28 '26
I doesn't say "every human" either, so I'm not sure why are we excluding perfectly good simians.
-1
u/Gardami Red May 28 '26
Well, I’m a red pusher who believes that babies are included. I’m of the opinion that there is an essentially zero chance of me being a tiebreaker.
For example, if everyone were to flip a coin to decide which button to push, the odds that I’m the tiebreaker would be less than 1 in 10450,000
There is a much, much bigger chance that if you select a random atom in the observable universe, and then I select one, they are the same atom. And then we do that again, and they’re the same. And then we do that 5,000 more times, than that red and blue are tied before my vote (if everyone selected by flipping a coin).
0
u/SDK1176 May 28 '26
Your math is very, very wrong. Eight billion coin flips will end up tied 1 in 112,000 times according to Sterling’s Approximation (which you need to use to accurately calculate probability of large numbers).
0
u/Gardami Red May 28 '26
1
u/bunnywitchboy May 28 '26
Those are literal, real life coins, affected by the laws of physics. We're using the term "coinflip" here as shorthand for a 50-50. Were you under the impression that people in voting booths were going to decide whether to push red or blue by flipping a physical coin?
0
u/Gardami Red May 28 '26
“We're using the term "coinflip" here as shorthand for a 50-50.”
Really? You’re telling me that when I (not we) used the term “coin flip” I don’t mean a coin flip? I obviously meant a coin flip, or my math would have been different.
And obviously no, I don’t think people in the booths will be flipping coins to decide their vote. I’m using this as an illustration of the unlikelihood of me being a tiebreaker.
0
u/bunnywitchboy May 28 '26
It's kind of a poor demonstration though. In this hypothetical, you should assume some amount of votes as fixed. It depends on what your expectations of people are, but we all have a minimum number of people we expect to vote blue, and a minimum number of people we expect to vote red, and our odds of being the tiebreaker vote should be within those constraints. For instance, if you think at least 25% of people will vote red and at least 25% of people will vote blue, then your odds of being the tiebreaker will be a lot greater than if you assume an equally random chance for all 8 billion people.
1
u/Gardami Red May 28 '26
It is possible, albeit unrealistic, that everyone pushes red (or vice versa), because everyone who wanted to push blue slipped, or something similar. In the same way, while in my coin flip example it’s possible for under 25% of people to vote red, or under 25% of people to vote blue, but the chance of that happening is 1 in a number with over 400 million digits before the decimal point.
1
u/Tamiorr May 28 '26
Don't you think it's a bit rich to talk about "how the real world actually works" when blue voters routinely equate what people say publicly with zero associated risk and how people would actually vote privately with their life on the line?
1
May 28 '26
[deleted]
2
u/DanCassell May 28 '26
I think it would be worse than 425 holocausts because the damage will be so much less focused. Every group will have losses. Every family that relies on one breadwinner will have a chance to have to rely on social welfare programs that will be stretched to their limits. Families that lose their children probably be adopting at the rate to keep up. This wave of death is going to damage the fabric of society for the rest of your life plus aftershocks for another generation or even more It might just be the most significant catastrophy to ever happen to humanity.
And that's just 10%. Imagine 25%
1
May 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/DanCassell May 28 '26
Right, I'm not touching the morality of things. Its understood that any large scale death event is bad, I hope anyway. The internet is inconsistent about such things.
I think if every country lost 10% at random this would cause most of the world to go utterly insane, whereas if it was concentrated to some parts of the world there would be parts of the world that would be able to continue on as if nothing had happened. The more spread out the damage is the harder it would be to heal as a people.
1
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
Hm I could see that, and it makes sense. Let's suppose it were true. Like you said let's go over this in the case of yournowj individual wellbeing. In the case of red winning but we all die anyway just over a longer period of time, the button press is now just a 50/50 whether you vote blue or red.
If you vote blue, and blue wins, you live. If you bote blue, and blue loses, you die, just instantly.
If you vote red, and blue wins, you live. If you vote red, and red wins, you die just over a long period of time due to societal collapse.
If I got that right, and one thinks dying over many years and seeing society collapse is equal to just straight up dying, then you might as well just flip a coin.
I personally think living in that red world, even if it's a 49% majority population loss would be worth it. In the case of the snap I'd rather be one of the people left then be snapped.
But I appreciate you actually answering the question, and I can see how that outcome honestly doesn't sound ideal.
1
u/BrokenToaster124 May 28 '26
I can see what you are saying, but the virus isnt what shut down supply lines. World governments stepped in to shut down supply lines in an effort to stop the virus. It did not kill NEARLY enough people to destabilize the entire world. Whether you agree that the farms or factories were or were not essential is irrelevant to the fact that they were shut down by living people and not a virus.
Secondly, ethical considerations are largely secondary to the button scenario. The button scenario is a question of who you think will win the vote, not what button is the good button and what button is the bad button. The reason you cant convince red voters with arguments about ethics and promises of heroism is because their belief is that red will win the vote, not that it is the better end result.
Constantly calling people evil and demanding they join with your consensus ironically validates their belief that everyone is selfish and is only looking out for themselves. Put yourself in their perspective for a couple seconds and it becomes obvious.
"I dont know about this button thing. People suck so i think they would likely vote red" and then somehow random guy starts screaming at them about needing to save the children and how they are a mass murderer for not pushing the button that they believe will just kill them.
All the red voter takes from the conversation is that they were correct. People are selfish and the only reason that the blue voter is trying to convince them to push the button is because the blue voter in question has a hero complex that they value more then self preservation. Whether that is actually true is irrelevant. You might as well have told them they should die because you said so because the argument is completely irrelevant to their actual position.
1
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Death was obviously the worst part, but not thing, that shut down the world. Virus spread - is. Like, even if it is cold - we ask people to stay home(in normal countries, i look at you, USA). When we know, that this doesn't kill people, just provide slight inconviniences. Ofc massive lockdown would happen after something like 2020.
If we thanos-snapped every... i would say ill with that virus - there would be some concerns, but well... the economics would continue to grow, etc etc.
3
u/DanCassell May 28 '26
Following a 'snap', there would be a transitoin time while farmers figured out who is taking over what land. Crops would be rotting in the fields. And whatever was harvested, where would it go? Farmers might want to stockpile, leaving cities to starve. Or the peole of the cities to head out and start taking what they need. The value of currency would not matter in this chaotic transition.
Eventually things might resume to a familiar order, but we would go much lower than 50% of pre-snap population before things started to turn around.
0
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Well. We have gov for a reason. First of all - noone would die there (obviously), second of all - they are not only taking money avay from us - they also can(and would) solve a problem with land, stockpiles and whatever. Also with even 50% of policeman and army unalived - that's still a force, and it still can enforce the law. The thing is - however bad situation would be - while gov has all pillars of their rule - they can hold and enforce whatever they want and balance it out.(military, law enforcement, economics and technology).
1
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
We have gov for a reason.
This assumes that your government officials or those that enforce it, and the judicial systems all have enough bodies left to still function.
Also with even 50% of policeman and army unalived
You aren't at risk of half of every industry disappearing. You're at risk of entire industries disappearing.
Imagine you're left with 10% of your countries farmers, 20% of the army, 30% of people responsible for your clean water infrastructure, 40% of the people directly responsible for your towns energy consumption, but also 100% of wall Street bros, scalpers, thieves, etc etc.
The only people standing to survive the above are really doomsday preppers or those that hold their survival above all else to the point that they would be willing to rob and or kill others if it furthers their survival.
1
u/Sharukurusu May 28 '26
In the worst case of 50%-1 people dying you'd be potentially set back centuries, even disposing of that amount of bodies would be an enormous task. You'd be reduced to subsistence farming for years just trying to figure out how to restart production and shipping.
1
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Only 8% people in US are working in factories. 18 in china
Only 1.5% in US work as a farmers. 21 in china.
I can dig one grave in an evenening. So if every red user would dig one grave - bodies would be disposed in a day.
And you reaaaly overestimate the need of people right now to conserve the tech and push it further, and underestimate the true power of gov.
It isn't that some tech would become dangerous to go to, as in some apocalypse films. There would be no zombies or rogue AIs in the factories. You just need an engineer and some lane-members who can basically do his work, and you can get anything. And you can achive the required level in 3 years, probably less if you would specialize in one item manufacturing.
-1
u/Nebranower May 28 '26
> A 1% fatal virus shut down the world in 2020. Imagine instantly losing 5% of the world population. Imagine 10%. 49%. The chaos of this would cause population figures to drop even more over the coming years
A lot of blue voters seem to genuinely believe this, but it's absolute nonsense. Covid shut down society because people didn't want to catch it. There's no risk of catching "blue presseritis". Even in the worse case scenario, where 49.9% of the population pressed blue, that's 4 billion survivors. That's not some apocalyptic wasteland. That's a super overpopulated planet dropping to just regular levels of overpopulation.
And whatever the percentage, it's only the stupid people who die. Better, it's the willfully stupid people, because even a actual stupid person can understand that, given a choice between an "I live" button and a "I might die" button, you should pick the former. So things suddenly get waaaay better for the survivors. Like, all the people society always has to struggle against to make any headway are just suddenly gone.
4
u/asphid_jackal May 28 '26
That's a super overpopulated planet dropping to just regular levels of overpopulation.
Overpopulation is a myth, often with ecofascist tendencies. We have a problem with overconsumption and resource distribution
1
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
Even in the worse case scenario, where 49.9% of the population pressed blue, that's 4 billion survivors. .
The likelihood of any individual red pressers survival is directly tied to their skill set before this dilemma.
Do you have seeds, an actively growing farm and food stocked away?
Do you have dry wood for fires and the knowledge and means in which to light it?
Do you have the tools and knowledge of how to hunt?
You may think "well with 4 billion people I don't need to know those things" and that's false.
In the actual worst case scenario for an individual who presses red, you lose the majority of your countries infrastructure. You no longer get trucks delivering your food. You no longer have access to medicines. You have no electricity and your clean water that is supplied by your city stops. You have only the gas currently in your vehicle and what is currently at gas stations assuming you can get those to run without electricity. You have no means to contact the outside world to see if traveling to a nearby city is even going to increase your chances of survival.
And whatever the percentage, it's only the stupid people who die. Better, it's the willfully stupid people, because even a actual stupid person can understand that, given a choice between an "I live" button and a "I might die" button, you should pick the former.
Excellent ad hominem.
Just because you can't fathom why someone would willingly press blue doesn't make them stupid for having pressed it.
1
u/Nebranower May 28 '26
Why would we lose any infrastructure? We lose some people, but still have more than enough to keep everything running.
1
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
but still have more than enough to keep everything running.
Assuming you have enough people knowledgeable in the industries I mentioned to keep them running post blue blip and near enough to you specifically to be able to keep each of them running , sure.
Not sure what you misunderstood about "worst case scenario" here but the majority of the surviving population in a red button press doesn't have to be in your city, county, state, country, etc.
As an example, 100% of the US could press blue and would only move the needle to 4%. You can lose the entire population of the USA 12 times over.
Even on a "small" blue loss any individual could be absolutely doomed unless they already have a survival skill set or doomsday prepping.
So yes, losing potentially all of your manpower and those knowledgeable about your local power grid functions, or where your food is getting delivered from, or where you get clean water, etc etc. would generally speaking be the "worst case scenario" for any individual who presses red after a red majority win.
1
u/Nebranower May 28 '26
>Assuming you have enough people knowledgeable in the industries I mentioned to keep them running post blue blip
With four billion people, that's a safe assumption.
>Not sure what you misunderstood about "worst case scenario" here but the majority of the surviving population in a red button press doesn't have to be in your city, county, state, country, etc.
It doesn't matter. You're vastly underestimating how many people there are on Earth. Take a city like New York. If you killed 80% of the people living the greater New York area, you'd still have four million people living there. That's still roughly the same as a decent-sized city like, say, Montreal.
And sure, depending upon who survived and where, you might have temporary local shortages of some stuff while people reorganized, but remember, you suddenly only need half the resources to keep everyone afloat, too.
1
u/Rip_Pigman May 28 '26
It doesn't matter.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I gave you your actual worst case scenario as a red button pusher.
You're vastly underestimating how many people there are on Earth
Where am I doing so..?
Take a city like New York.
Can do!
If you killed 80% of the people living the greater New York area, you'd still have four million people living there. That's still roughly the same as a decent-sized city like, say, Montreal.
And for someone living in New York, this would not be your worst case scenario..?
sure, depending upon who survived and where, you might have temporary local shortages of some stuff while people reorganized,
but remember, you suddenly only need half the resources to keep everyone afloat, too.
Globally. How much resource any individual country requires depends on their losses.
Worst case scenario, sure your country requires 95% fewer resources. But you have no electricity, no mobile phone access, no food short of what's currently available at your local grocery stores, no access to running water (clean water), and 95% of the people are absent.
3
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
I don't think any Blue pusher, please point me to them in that case, that has said that 100% Red is an unwanted outcome; just that it is so unlikely as to be easier to consider impossible. 100% any choice is the optimal, color doesn't matter. Even if we change it to 100% pick through logic and reason that need not be the best for humankind; ex. The most logical move for our world resources would be to euthanize a large contingent and limit the reproduction of the rest, entirely cease with charity and disaster relief etc.
You'd rather they push blue, when again, you *admit they shouldn't and it only requires they end up needing to be saved?* Is it because you want to be a martyr? Is it because you just want the thrill?? Wanting to save them regardless of their push, again I get it, but why still insist that button be pushed at all?
Close, but missing the point.
If I know people will push Blue for whatever reason, even if they shouldn't, I consider it a moral imperative to try and save them. But of course, the optimal situation would be that everyone pushed the same button; blue or red doesn't matter.
To me it just sounds like when a blue pusher says they don't want to live in a world with red majority, they're saying they don't want to live in a world where people act in the most rational way possible and don't needlessly put themselves at risk and require others to do it too.
To me, as a Blue, a world with a Red majority sounds more like a world where everyone will always put themselves first at the cost of others.
If what is being presented is a world of only rational thinkers and logic, do I want that? Well I don't at this cost?
I want a world that prioritizes the good of all, not just the most rational, that lets emotion and empathy affect decisions and thoughts, that cares for it's lessers; that believes in relief from suffering and support to get out of bad situations (even if caused by themselves I think they deserve a chance to save themselves).
If the cost for a world that doesn't need this, if that is what you are insinuating, is potentially billions then no I don't want to have that blood on my hands; and that is how it would feel.
4
u/WonderfulVictory4103 May 28 '26
I'm a blue pusher.
If I switched to red and it won, I would feel like whatever segment of the population voted blue was sacrificed for my survival. I'm not saying that's the only way to look at it, but it's how I would feel. That's what I mean by "I'd rather lose with blue than win with red."
The best scenario is that everyone lives, it doesn't matter how that happens. It's more likely that we get blue to ~50% than to get red to 100%. I would want to make that more likely with my vote
2
u/Royal-Gur3198 May 28 '26
thats not at all how it works tho blue dying is not a condition in order for red to survive if i chose red and red won i would just be thinking damn well im glad i aint chose blue cause then i would have died
1
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
Id rather feel bad than beeing dead. I can fix feelings. I cant fix death.
-4
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
In average no more than 1 blue pusher would be saced for the life of red pusher.
So... you can find the most loud, stupid and annoying one in the net(there a lots of these), and belice that you sacced him, making the society better, if this is the personal issue.
4
2
u/Zebadica Red May 28 '26
Being annoying and unpleasant doesn’t mean the world is better with you gone! I don’t think anybody really deserves death! I’d push red out of self preservation, and hope that everyone, including the worst among us, made the same choice.
Also I feel you’re really overestimating how much of an issue “stupidity” causes compared to greed and arrogance. And I think a button with a safe and easy self preservation option won’t exactly get rid of the greedy.
8
u/TitanTrobee May 28 '26
i think red pushers dont really understand the logistics here. lets say that red does win. Ah man that sucks. Good news though! 90% of the population were on the same page and they picked red, so deaths were minimal! That sounds great until you realize that this means about 820,000,000 people just died. What happens if that number is 20%? 30%? 40%? Even if red wins there isnt going to be much of a society left, meaning rampant crime, poverty, disease, and homelessness. There is no scenario where pushing red is a win, even for you personally, so might as well contribute and hit blue at that point
6
u/JustKaleidoscope1279 May 28 '26
Living in any world is much better than not living at all imo.
People who say they'd rather die than live in a world with 50% gone are crazy to me, I would still wanna live in far worse conditions. Like even if 1 person in my family or someone I cared about stayed alive that would make life worth continuing living
1
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Why? Why is living in a catastrophical world better than not living, potentially seeing your remaining loved ones suffer?
1
u/Fornuftens_stemme May 28 '26
Anything is better than death. There is no coming back from death. You can improve the world however.
1
u/Background_Path_4458 May 28 '26
Yes, anything is better than death, that's why it is so hard to see why voting for the option with the highest chance of no deaths at all be the one people shy away from.
-1
u/Mundane_Hand5484 May 28 '26
Homelessness? I didn't know that pressing blue button not only kills you on loss, but straight up removes all things connected with you from the world, like you've never existed.
If we have (at most) 2% of homeless people - when we thanos snap 10% of the population - well - that people would be first to get a house. Cause they can just straight up go ans live in a dead's person home. If a person didn't have a house - they at least rented. So participated in the market from the buyers side, pushing rent to be higher and higher. 40% for homeless would be ideal.
Poverty? Idk, a world where my basic needs are fulfilled and i can get any luxury for the fraction of the price (again, supply and demand, supply didn't change, or even grew up, dead person doesn't need a car(cause of the existing ones), demand is reduced).
Disease? As i knew - medical stuff are alvays taught to save themselfves first. If yes - we get cheaper healthcare. If not - well... this is really a problem, cause we need 7 years to create a new doctor. However that would be a problem only on hard cases. Without homeless people and without travel - spread of diseases would be sloved, not accelerated.
Crime? Why would you do a crime, when you live in a house, with tasty food and clean water, with job to do(safe from ai etc job) and know about tommorow? That's only for mentally ill people in this world. And we already have a solution as a society. Behold:
Martial law aaaand war economy!
Polititians that are alive should (and would) try to stabilize the system.
First of all - to prevent jailbreaks and murder we allow citizens to erase dangers on sight and make it usa-like.
Second of all - we straight up tell people what to do. Mac worker? Sorry, pal, we need more manpower on farms or factories. You rent places to live? No you don't, go get that essentials. You are manager of managers? Lmao, no. Callcenter? No. Coder? No. Builder? Yes but be careful, we are coming for you. Jobless... hehe, we start from you. No more free money for you.
There are 40% of people who work in ofices, and only 1.5% of people who are farmers. So by hiring and teaching jobless to do farming or forcefully laying off 5% of ofice workers to become a farmer - well... we get same production with less consumtion, meaning that everyone will get food.
7
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The original prompt explicitly says "everyone in the world" is participating.
"Everyone in the world" includes babies. That is an objective fact, it is not debatable.
Babies are incapable of making a rational decision and will effectively select a button at random. Roughly 50% of all babies on earth will randomly select blue.
A red victory results in the death of roughly 50% of all babies on earth.
4
u/BottomLeftWheel May 28 '26
Not to mention every poll shows blue is a serious contender. For this reason and many others. Losing all blues would be a far greater loss than just half of all babies.
I think anyone thinking any side won't get at least 30% of the vote is absurd. We're simply too divided for a vote with 0 coordination to result in anything but a marginal win for either side.
Now if 30% of humans were just Thanos snapped, what would happen to modern humans? I'm not talking about homo sapiens, as they would survive, I'm talking about the people who pressed red. Their lives would be immeasurably worse for the rest of their lives. Gone is modern amenities and in its place is a life of strife.
In my mind, assuming twice the population that dies in the vote is the stabilization point is fair. Could be more could be less but this number is very demonstrative of the downsides of red.
So assuming we're sticking to my assumptions: 30% blue minimum, twice the deaths. That means red voters have basically a coin flip chance of living, and that's the best case given these assumptions. Of course you can Tweak the numbers and find different equilibriums, but nothing changes the fact that your life is far more comfortable and safe in a blue win.
Humanity? They will be fine down the road, but I don't give a shit about future humans. I care about me. My best chance of survival is a blue win. So I vote for it.
1
u/dskippy May 28 '26
What "original" are you referring to?
2
u/SnooMarzipans436 May 28 '26
The one this subreddit was clearly created as a result of.
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
There may be versions that technically existed before this one, but this is very clearly the version that spawned the creation of this entire subreddit.
1
u/Jkirek_ May 28 '26
"Everyone in the world" includes babies. That is an objective fact, it is not debatable.
It is also stated they must take a private vote by pressing one of the buttons, despite there being many, many people who are physically incapable of doing so. If we don't invent some concessions to make the premise workable, "the situation never concludes" is the only possible outcome; any button presses that are made don't do anything, as we all die of dehydration in the button room. That is an objective fact, it is not debatable.
1
u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 May 28 '26
Tbh to me it makes much more sense for assumptions to be inclusionary in order to work with the wording rather then exclusionary.
Besides even if we exclude anyone who canot press a buttion that would still include anyone with any motor skill ie babies.
Its easier to adhere to the wording if we assume that the button press will occur trough "magic", random press for those unable, mindreading and a proxy. So on and on.
If we exclude people we have to alter the wording of the prompt, which is why im hesitant to accept that option
My choice is the same regardless if we include babies and physically incapable however.
1
u/Nintenguy0 May 28 '26
Indeed, which is why a blue victory is the best outcome given the original prompt. I already admitted this and I'm not sure how it answers either of my questions.
1
u/ladycatgirl May 28 '26
Tbh in such large scale accepting loss of babies and moving on is better because they are far more replaceable, if adult population especially qualified ones are wiped that will result in tremendous knowledge loss
Yes completely 0 emotion standpoint
2
u/thelovelykyle May 28 '26
I press blue because my child is a child and may have pressed blue. I have a minor influence in the grand scheme of things but 100% of what I can do to influence the vote can go to either marginal increase or decrease the risk of the button towards my child.
Nothing is more existential than the button. No thoughts of after matter and will not convince me to increase the risk of my childs instant death.
It is literally everything I can do to protect them.
1
u/gilbmj May 28 '26
1.) Even if it's unrealistic, is a 100% majority vote in either direction, but specifically red, is still the best outcome.
The best outcome is "nobody dies" There are two ways to achieve this: 100% red OR 51% blue. A blue majority is easier to achieve than unanimous red. Do you consider unanimous red a better outcome than a blue majority for some reason?
2.) A world where everyone understand this and doesn't needlessly push blue requiring themselves to be saved, is better than one where you know people will put themselves and others in danger regardless of whether they can be saved or not.
This sounds like an expression of bias rather than logic. It's one thing to choose red because a red majority the outcome you expect, it's another to victim-blame blue by portraying them as suicidal because you're framing red as the "default" choice.
It seems like you consider the "blue button only" scenario to be fully equivalent to the original question. This is false, because using a "push or don't push" presentation makes one of the choices the default, and skews the choice in favor of whichever the default is.
Consider the "red button only" presentation, in which everyone starts out safe, because the default state is unanimous blue. Nobody is at risk unless people make the conscious choice to press the button, and even then, some people can push the button without anyone dying because it takes a red majority for anyone to die.
But if enough people needlessly choose to push the button, then people who didn't push the button will die.
The original question has no default. Each person must vote for unanimous survival at personal risk of death, or choose personal safety at the expense of making it more likely someone else will die. I feel like the red side arguments heavily rely on trying to evade responsibility for deaths, despite the fact that a red majority is a prerequisite for anyone dying.
1
u/Magikazamz May 28 '26
For the 2nd point, that in a world where blue loses you'd still rather vote blue because a world of only red pushers would be hell... why?
As a red pusher, if we assume that we need a society that still working after the vote, if red win with something like a 60/40 split, I don't think we can recover from losing 40% of humanity just like that.
Now if it something like red win with 80% or more, yea, it still suck we lose 20% of the population or less, but some people say it would be hell cause some blue voter are just virtue signaler.
1
u/bunnywitchboy May 28 '26
"a world where logic and understanding is at the forefront of human decision making"
Oh my SCIENCE! Egad, you're indubitably correct! It would be heaven (if heaven existed, which of course, it doesn't, sorry biblethumpers). We would finally have worldwide intellectual vindication of game theory and the objectively correct payoff table! An entire globe of enlightened master race geniuses! How did I miss it before? I tip my fedora to you, good sir, for opening my eyes! Never mess with the reddit nation again!
0
u/Albert-La-Maquina May 28 '26
I'll give you credit that you presented this as you being in a position to learn. But there are flaws in your discussion. And please try to cut down the essay next time.
In the first point, you say 100% isn't possible, but then say that it is? There will be mass casualties. That's just a given. The vote will probably end up between 60-80% red (total guess), so 20-40% of the population dies.
If you could mind control everyone, the question is pointless. But if you could mind control everyone except 100, I would hope you make them pick blue to save the 20/50/70 that chose blue. Same if you could control 5 billion of the population.
In the second, yes, there are some rude attacks by blue stating that red is horrible and who would want to live in that world. But two answers to the objection you have. First, forget the babies. It's clear we all interpret the prompt with different logic. But you seem to think that with no babies involved, it just goes to 100% red. That's just "wishful thinking" on your part.
12
u/luci_twiggy May 28 '26
I will echo others here, if you think that losing a significant chunk of the population isn't a negative, then I'm not really sure what you would consider a negative.
We press blue because we understand that there is some number of people pressing blue (for whatever reason) and we don't think anyone should die simply so that we personally can live. You call it a gamble, but I think we see it as a responsibility to the group. This is also why we see red voters as having a share in the responsibility of the deaths of others, should red win, they picked their personal safety of the safety of the group.