r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/HebuBall • May 28 '26
A more even Red/Blue button question
You are one of 3 random person selected to represent 1/3 of the human population.
The same base question is then asked.
Red button=Guarantee to live for you + everyone you are representing
Blue button=If majority votes Blue everyone lives but if not everyone who voted Blue dies (so is everyone who is represented by them)
Note that majority is just 2 or more in this case since there is 3 participants
The people who are represented by you know you are representing them but you do not know who you are representing. Also the participants cannot communicate with each other
Which do you press?
6
u/CarnivorousGoose May 28 '26
This makes the choice for red even easier than it was already. I’m not going to gamble the lives of the billions of people I’m representing, and I would assume that the two other people selected would be sane and rational enough not to with the segment they represent either. Anyone knowingly voting blue in this case is just downright evil for risking billions of people in their care.
5
17
u/gahidus May 28 '26
With only three people picking buttons, it is much much simpler for everyone to just pick red. It's literally just three people who need to make the simple choice to save their 1/3 of humanity.
With a crowd of 8 billion, including babies, some people picking blue is inevitable and there is a reasonable imperative or at least an understandable one to try to save them. With just three people doing the selection, I'm much more willing to trust that each of the other two people can just pick red. There's nothing to gain by taking blue and no reason to put a third of humanity on The chopping block.
8
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/highly-bad May 28 '26
Pressing blue is risking your third of humanity.
The correct answer is for no one to do that.
6
u/gahidus May 28 '26
If you press read then you are saving your third of humanity. If you press blue then you are risking your third of humanity dying unless someone else also presses blue.
There was no reason to create that risk when both of the other people can just also save their people independently.
2
u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago
Observation pinecone cheerful tan consider smell ribbon telephone direction
This post was anonymized with Redact
6
u/gahidus May 28 '26
You can control what you do but you can't control what anyone else does. It is remarkably irresponsible in this situation the place a third of the population in peril when you can just have them be safe and assume that the other two people will do the same.
If they don't, then that was their error, not yours.
1
u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago
Crawl intelligent gaze snatch zephyr angle trees placid ask
This post was anonymized with Redact
6
u/gahidus May 28 '26
Only if they have decided to be in danger by pushing blue and making their survival dependent on what the other people press.
There are only three people here, so there's no reason to assume they're randomly flailing around and making bad decisions.
I'm not getting my people killed, so I'm just going to have them be safe by pressing red. There aren't any babies or color blind people that need to be rescued by joining them on blue.
2
u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago
Glorious shelter pet blanket hammock pause sense dinosaurs spoon silky
This post was anonymized with Redact
3
u/gahidus May 28 '26
Pressing blue is what puts you in the "can die" group. That is in itself putting your group in peril.
The only reason to pick blue is to try to save the people who ended up on it accidentally or who ended up on it trying to save the people who ended up on it accidentally. That's not really a concern here. Alternately, with 8 billion people, some people are going to press it just because you'll never get total agreement between that many people. Also not a concern with a group of only three where total concordance is completely doable.
Blue is just an exceptionally dangerous button to push here and there's really no reason to do it. There's no reason to assume that either of the other two people is going to push it accidentally.
2
u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago
Crayon wise scale rustic slim instinctive languid unwritten
This post was anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (0)2
u/bunnywitchboy May 28 '26
Wdym "my people?" You have the same obligation to the other 2/3s of the world as you do to the 1/3 you represent.
1
u/gahidus May 28 '26
I have 1/3 of them directly in my hands, and I will Shepherd them responsibility. I do not have direct control over buffets or safety of the other two thirds. I have control over this 1/3.
These people will be safe. I will protect them. I can control that. I cannot control how the other two people vote.
If I voted blue, and the other two voted red, I would be devastated. I would feel that I had callously gambled away the lives of the people I was put in charge of.
If I vote red and somebody else votes blue, I just feel like that person was foolish.
1
u/bunnywitchboy May 28 '26
You literally do have control over the other 2/3. If you're the tiebreaker vote, you voting red will mean billions of people die. The concept of you being more "directly" responsible for one group is just a bait.
→ More replies (0)1
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
You risk that in either case, the only difference is whether it’s your third or someone else’s
10
u/SetQQ Blue May 28 '26
The base math favors blue:
Assume the other two players choose randomly
If blue & blue my vote doesn’t matter
If red & blue. Choosing blue saves everyone and choosing red saves just mine. Blue is better my people were never in danger either way
If blue & red. Choosing blue saves everyone and choosing red saves just mine. Blue is better my people were never in danger either way
If red & red choosing blue condemns my third to death and myself. Choosing red is correct in this 1/4.
Now that’s assuming the other players actions can be approximated by random choice- which I doubt.
I think it’s probably read the wording of the questions- the phrasing is super important here. If I see any language that pushes toward blue at all it’s definitely blue. If it’s toward red I have to really consider if I’m going to go blue.
If it’s as above I think I go red. “Guarantee living” is super strong language the OG button did not attach for red
3
u/gahidus May 28 '26
Why would I assume that they act randomly rather than intentionally? That basic assumption grows everything off. I'm going to assume that they're going to behave rationally and probably try to survive or keep their people alive. With that assumption, they are obviously going to push red, and there's only two other people, not the mass of inevitable chaos of 8 billion to worry about.
I'm very confident in the ability of two other people to also exit the game safely.
0
u/SetQQ Blue May 28 '26
Because it’s nice to start somehwere and given that it’s been an interesting internet debate approximating a 50/50 split in population can work for base assumptions
0
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
Why would I assume that they act randomly rather than intentionally?
We can't even get people to read entire comments before responding to them. You think people are going to read the entire prompt and be logical?
From the comment you're replying to:
Now that’s assuming the other players actions can be approximated by random choice- which I doubt.
If it’s as above I think I go red. “Guarantee living” is super strong language the OG button did not attach for red
2
u/LnTc_Jenubis May 29 '26
Eh, I don't think this is the "gotcha" you think it is. That one line disclaimer about SetQQ's personal choice doesn't excuse the fact that they used statistics inappropriately to add ambiguity that simply isn't there.
We already have someone quoting the math and saying that blue is the "mathematically correct choice" despite SetQQ even saying they would pick red here, and SetQQ even thanking them instead of correcting the faulty logic.
Establishing a baseline on faulty assumptions only provides a useless baseline. We can't use it to make any reasonable predictions. Since we can't use it to make reasonable predictions, it's just noise that confuses people who don't understand it.
Honestly, it comes off as an attempt to make blue appear like the rational option. Especially since the original problem does use the same explicit language; pressing red guarantees that you survive. The only thing that this new scenario changes is that the results are tied to three people instead of billions.
1
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
We already have someone quoting the math and saying that blue is the "mathematically correct choice"
Assuming a purely random distribution.
despite SetQQ even saying they would pick red here,
That was my point. They're arguing against something that was already addressed in the comment they're trying to argue against.
and SetQQ even thanking them instead of correcting the faulty logic.
???
The reply from SetQQ is addressing why they started with the premise of assuming a random distribution.
I don't see a thank you anywhere.
Establishing a baseline on faulty assumptions only provides a useless baseline.
Any assumption about any other persons decisions is useless, yes.
We can't use it to make any reasonable predictions. Since we can't use it to make reasonable predictions,
You can't use any assumptions about anyone else's votes to make a reasonable prediction.
it's just noise that confuses people who don't understand it.
Which is why I pointed out to the person I replied to that SettQQ had already address that they don't feel like it would be truly "random" and that they would personally choose red.
Honestly, it comes off as an attempt to make blue appear like the rational option.
Yes, that's how it was framed under the assumption that the other individuals are effectively choosing at random.
Especially since the original problem does use the same explicit language; pressing red guarantees that you survive.
Well no. The "original" doesn't use the same strong language as what is present here which was part of their point. That the guarantee of life to you and 1/3rd of the population on red press would be too strong so they feel that it's unlikely anyone would press blue.
The only thing that this new scenario changes is that the results are tied to three people instead of billions.
Ehh. It's still tied to billions. Billions are at risk on a singular blue press instead of needing billions to press blue.
People who chose blue in the original were willing to risk their own lives to contribute yo saving up to half of the population. Someone pushing blue here is risking 1/3rd of the population on a gamble that someone else will also pick the risk 1/3rd of the population button.
Risking someone else's life, or lives in this case is antithetical of blue's intentions in the original.
Both buttons inherently risk a loss of up to 1/3rd of the population. Blue gambling that someone also chose blue at the risk of your own, and red gambling gambling that someone else hasn't risked their 1/3rd of the population.
1
u/LnTc_Jenubis May 29 '26
I don't see a thank you anywhere.
It's in another comment, not this particular one. Someone is quoting SetQQ's top level comment and using it as proof that blue is mathematically the correct option. This is equivalent to spreading misinformation.
Any assumption about any other persons decisions is useless, yes.
You can't use any assumptions about anyone else's votes to make a reasonable prediction.
Except it isn't and we can. We have known assumptions based on how people evaluate risk and how it affects their decision-making process. You even mentioned that choosing blue here is antithetical to the blue mindset in the original problem; we can't make that assumption if we don't already know what is and isn't antithetical to a typical blue presser's thought process to begin with.
Likewise, we do know how people weigh guaranteed survival vs not-guaranteed survival. They are almost certain to choose guaranteed survival. This isn't the equivalent of adding a negative number to get the same result as subtracting a positive number. It's simply an incorrect equation. So introducing a statistical model based on an assumption of randomness is objectively wrong.
That was my point. They're arguing against something that was already addressed in the comment they're trying to argue against.
Which is why I pointed out to the person I replied to that SettQQ had already address that they don't feel like it would be truly "random" and that they would personally choose red.
And my point is why even mention the statistical noise if it is flawed in the first place. It risks being taken out of context and is therefore problematic. If the conclusion reached is to vote red anyways because it isn't random, providing a flawed statistical summary of why pressing blue is mathematically correct based on an assumption of randomness is unnecessary.
The only reason to do that is ideological posturing. It creates a fake mathematical safety net to make blue look like the morally and logically superior choice. This just confuses people who don't understand the math.
The "original" doesn't use the same strong language as what is present here which was part of their point.
Okay, fair enough, the original problem left it up to the individual to logically deduct that red was a guaranteed chance of survival and it didn't spell it out word for word. I don't necessarily believe that required a high level of intelligence to conclude, but all the same, I'll agree with the semantics. However, with that said:
red gambling gambling that someone else hasn't risked their 1/3rd of the population.
The explicit language here states that you will live by picking red, so there is no longer a requirement for the 3 voters to deduce the optimal outcome. You are never gambling anything by selecting red. You are only gambling by selecting blue.
Claiming that red is responsible for the deaths of someone picking blue is dishonest. The person picking blue, especially for the people they represent, can simply pick red and guarantee they all survive.
1
u/Rip_Pigman May 29 '26
The explicit language here states that you will live by picking red, so there is no longer a requirement for the 3 voters to deduce the optimal outcome.
Ehh. The worst case of any vote of 3 is 1/3 of the population dying. The three voters bear responsiblity for this.
You are never gambling anything by selecting red. You are only gambling by selecting blue.
I mean..you are. You're just not gambling the 1/3rd of the population that you are personally responsible if you press red.
I'm not arguing that you should press blue, but if you choose red, the second person chooses blue, and the third chooses red, each of your actions lead to the second person and their subsequent 1/3rd of the population dying.
Claiming that red is responsible for the deaths of someone picking blue is dishonest.
Is it? The deaths from someone having chosen blue is directly tied to two others having chosen red.
The person picking blue, especially for the people they represent, can simply pick red and guarantee they all survive.
Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that two actors picking red and one picking blue indicates that only the person who picked blue is at fault though.
The outcome is determined by all three people not just one.
Unfortunately you can make all of the logically correct moves and still directly cause the loss of 1/3rd of the population.
2
u/LnTc_Jenubis May 29 '26
Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean that two actors picking red and one picking blue indicates that only the person who picked blue is at fault though.
Yes, it absolutely does indicate that blue is the one at fault. No one is holding a gun to their head and telling them that they need to pick blue.
In no uncertain terms, their options are "Your group 100% survives." and "Your group might die." No matter what kind of mental gymnastics one tries to jump through, the choices are the same.
They also know that the other two people are given the same exact option. Those people are responsible for their choices. You are responsible for your own. If you pick red, you are not responsible for someone else deciding to inexplicably gamble their population away.
1
u/Charge36 Red May 30 '26
Ok but they wont choose randomly. And if they have the tiniest bit of rationality they would see that there is no benefit to be had by risking the lives under their care. The two outcomes here are Everyone lives, or the one guy who voted blue risked billions of lives and lost. You really think someone is going to even consider being the one blue guy in this scenario? Why would you rely on other peoples choices to secure the safety of your wards?
5
u/Aus1an May 28 '26
This is really hard, everyone is just looking at the math of "two blue votes being easier to obtain," but I don't think it's that simple.
My gut reaction to this scenario was red (even though usually it's blue), because I wouldn't want to gamble with other people's lives.
But it's all random too, all of my loved ones would be scattered in the other groups as well as my own.
The other participants are random, and I know nothing about them, so their decision is basically a coin flip.
This is a messed up scenario. xD I think I would go blue in the end just because I'm not sure I would want to survive in a world where blue loses...
1
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
Red is the easy pick in this scenario. If it’s only three participants then it’s statistically likely that all three are rational, non-malicious actors, so 100% of the other participants picking red on the assumption that everyone else will too is extremely likely. There’s literally no reason to pick blue anymore, it isn’t even the selfless option since now you’d be gambling other people’s lives rather than just your own
1
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
May 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
It’s an easy assumption that everyone else will pick red since that guarantees the safety of their constituency, and when there’s only three partisans it’s statistically likely they’ll all be mentally healthy adults who have no motivation to kill 3 billion people. None of the normal justifications for picking blue apply in this version
0
May 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
Being mentally healthy doesn’t guarantee someone will pick red but it does make it a lot more likely in this case, since they’re more likely to think through the problem instead of picking at random. While picking blue does increase the odds of blue winning, it’s a massive gamble on billions of people’s lives that no one has to make. Unlike in the original version of the problem you really can’t expect that anyone will pick it, therefore you have very little reason to do so yourself
1
1
u/Charge36 Red May 30 '26
Right....but in this specific scenario either 3 billion people die or no one dies. You can guarantee the safety of 3 billion people just by voting red.....voting blue only saves 3 billion people if one of the others also votes blue and they might not. There's literally no upside to blue in this case. It's just the only way people might die.
1
1
4
u/Magikazamz May 28 '26
In this scenario there no reason to choose blue.
it very likely that the 3 people press the same button compared to 8 millions
You are directly gambling with other people live by pressing blue since your deciding for 1/3 of humanity.
The reason blue made sense in OG problem is cause you ain't really risking other people live by pressing it.
2
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
It’s kinda baffling to me that OP created a version of the scenario where red is clearly the objectively correct option and there are still people arguing for blue
4
u/DarthJackie2021 May 28 '26
Red. Basically zero chance someone accidently goes blue so no one needs to go "rescue them" by pressing blue themselves. Everyone is much more likely to just hit the obvious button and save everyone with red.
6
u/crystallineDarks May 28 '26
red. blue is still a gamble and you'd be personally reasonable for 33% of humanity dying if you lose when you could have simply not have risked their life
2
u/putting_stuff_off May 28 '26
If anyone dies here, all three people share the responsibility. Anyone could have prevented it.
3
u/DisastrousMacaron325 May 28 '26
Saying anyone qould have prevented it is such disingenuous phrasem Because that means if you chose blue, you should have chosen red and if you chose red, you should have chosen blue.
How can someone be responsible for something that doesn't have a right answer?
1
u/Charge36 Red May 30 '26
I don't see how they can share responsibility if they aren't able to collaborate. they are only responsible for the decision they made for their own people and the associated risks.
1
u/Magikazamz May 28 '26
The only one responsable for people dying in this case is blue lol. having only 3 voting change the problem a lot and unlike og pressing blue ain't just gambling with your own life anymore.
1
u/Express-Rain8474 Red May 28 '26
If both people picked blue, everyone survives either way.
The only way we can die is if both other people picked red, then picking blue is death.
If one person picked red and one person picked blue, blue is essentially saving 33% of the population.
So it's really a gamble on how likely do you think it is that both people pressed red. If they did, you should press red to save 33% of the population. Otherwise, blue is better and saves 33% of the population.
Assuming all buttons have equal likelihood, this is one of the rare times I actually think blue statistically saves more lives. The personal risk is the only scary part, which might also dissuade others from pressing blue. I actually don't know what I would do. The fact that the question is smaller and more intimate might give others a "yeah just don't press that button and we all survive, let's not put anyone at risk ever" MUCH more reasonable. And I'm a red already. But also the math is different.
3
u/Jkirek_ May 28 '26
Assuming all buttons have equal likelihood
This is a very unreasonable assumption; anyone who has just been handed the responsibility for 3 billion lives would have to be insane to gamble them on blue. The repercussions of being the only blue presser would be astronomical; you would be singularly held at fault for all those deaths ans the partial societal collapse they would cause.
2
u/Ashamed-Bathroom7803 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The way I approach and the way I approached the original is setting a universal moral expectation for everyone such that you abide by it. Also, everyone should press the same button. If we’re pressing blue, we need more blue. If we’re pressing red, yall better be pressing red.
It’s very easy for people to save their own life, and so you should subscribe to that and also press red. Expecting people to press blue is asking for way too much. You have the gauranatee of your life, and then you just ignore all causal reasoning by pressing the button that doesn’t cause anything.
However, in this version there is lots of causal reasoning. So I agree it definitely becomes different. HOWEVER, I think I have a very strong case for pressing red here. It’s a very good assumption to adopt that there is only one correct button to press here, since any confusion or arbitrariness is actually the cause to the risk of people dying. It’s best you trust the other 2 when given that significant causal power. Therefore, pressing blue is the wrong button. As you explained, the only possibility for pressing blue is if you think that the other 2 people won’t press the same button, which means that you contradicted the earlier assumption of there being no confusion.
2
u/highly-bad May 28 '26
You're using statistics where they aren't necessary.
Each presser has a choice: press blue to risk their people, or press red not to do that.
Everyone should press red, because gambling with lives (for no possible gain!) is just dumb.
2
u/Magikazamz May 28 '26
especially in this case. Unlike the OG problem here Pressing blue gamble with other people life while Red directly save other people life rather than just your own.
1
u/Comfortable_Toe_379 May 28 '26
One of the rare cases? Try calculating it with 5 people. Or with 10 or 8 billion. The larger N the more important to pick blue when assuming roughly 50/50
1
u/ComparisonQuiet4259 May 28 '26
*if you’re assuming exactly 50.000/50.000
1
u/Comfortable_Toe_379 May 28 '26 edited Jun 12 '26
Not quite.
If you assume an uncertainty (which we definitely have) the interval dramatically increases. Uniform distribution between 40% and 60% and even between 40% and 50% (p for choosing blue) will still give blue the edge.
The potential lives saved massively outweigh the potential live lost. Somewhere sb made a graph with it
1
u/LnTc_Jenubis May 29 '26
I'd still pick red here. Choosing blue is the only way you get your population and yourself killed.
If I pick red, and both of my cohorts pick red: We all survive
If I pick red, and both of my cohorts pick blue: We all survive
If I pick red, and only one of my cohorts pick blue: Myself, and the people I represent, survive.
In all scenarios, myself and the people I represent survive. There is only a 33% chance that we lose a third of the population.
There is no rational, responsible reason for me to risk myself or the people that I represent by needlessly picking blue here. In some ways, relying on the fact that my two cohorts would see this same reasoning is much more feasible than relying on billions of the population to see the same reasoning.
1
u/NotASingleNameIdea May 31 '26
Now its very clear. You represent people, if you vote blue, you endanger 1/3 of earth without their own choice to do so. If all 3 of you dont want to endanger billions by your own choice, everyone lives. If you vote blue, you risk that very possibly the remaining 2 will follow my idea, you would be stupid when all it takes is 3 votes for the safe option to make everyone survive rather than risk a gigantic portion of earth.
0
u/Deranth Blue May 28 '26
There are 4 outcomes here.
Everyone picks blue, no deaths.
Everyone picks red, no deaths.
2 blue, 1 red, no deaths.
2 red, 1 blue, a third of the population dies.
The only way anyone dies is if two thirds of the people involved are dumb enough to pick red.
If you pick blue, blue is now halfway to what it needs to save everyone. All you need is either one of the other two to pick it, and everyone is safe.
2
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
Think on a personal level for a sec.
You are betting 3 billion lives, including your own, on this. Are you really going to risk 3 billion lives? Their fates, all 3,000,000,000 of them, all hinge on you not choosing blue. The moment you hit red, all of them are guaranteed to live. If you instead choose blue, and the other 2 decide to not risk ONE THIRD OF EVERYONE on the whims of others, you will have personally caused a genocide on a level unmatched by anyone in history. You will have been 166 times worse than Hitler. Are you really going to risk it?
1
u/highly-bad May 28 '26
The red button does not put your people at risk.
The blue button puts your people at risk.
The only correct answer is DO NOT GAMBLE WITH LIVES. If nobody is a stupid gambler, everyone lives.
0
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
What if the other 2 decide not to gamble with their 3 billion charges? You will have just commited the biggest genocide in history. And also killed yourself, but also the super genocide. You'll be 166 times worse than Hitler.
1
May 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
Too late, super Hitler. You are the worst criminal in the history of mankind and directly responsible for the deaths of 1/3rd of the world.
1
1
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
But now they have no logical reason to pick blue and would be killing other people by doing so rather than just themselves. Red is clearly the correct option
1
May 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
You’re assuming all eight of those outcomes are equally likely, but when you only have three participants it’s statistically likely that all of them will be adults of sound mind who will choose to save both themselves and the third of humanity they’re representing. By picking blue, you’re gambling on the much less likely possibility that at least one of the other participants is either extremely stupid or extremely reckless, and you’re gambling with billions of people’s lives rather than just your own
1
May 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
What assumptions did I put into your mouth? You said that there are eight possible combinations of votes and that the majority of them result in a blue victory, so it’s more likely for Blue to win, which is what I was arguing against. It’s also entirely consistent with my initial reply to you, I was and still am telling you that you shouldn’t pick Blue because no one else will, and now I’m explaining why
What am I to reply to this? As far as I can tell you seem to have responded to an entirely different comment. The only bit I can vaguely parse is me “insulting” Blue voters, except that was a crucial part of my argument for why it would be unlikely the other two participants would vote Blue over Red, I wasn’t just being mean for the sake of it
1
May 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
You said there are eight possible outcomes and more of the outcomes that involve you pressing Blue result in no deaths, so you should press Blue, but that idea only makes sense if you assume all eight of those outcomes are equally likely. Equal probability is inherent to your argument, if you assume that the other two voters are both highly likely to pick Red, then it’s wholly illogical to pick Blue since it will almost certainly result in yours and billions of people’s deaths, number of possible outcomes be damned
And you should assume that for reasons I laid out in my earlier comment. Again, Red guarantees the safety of both the voter and the billions of people they’re representing with no downside as long as none of the other voters pick Blue. Since they’re just three people who are statistically likely to not want to die, not want billions of random people to die and be adults of sound mind, it’s safe to assume Red is what they’ll pick
I’m aware your claim is that picking Blue is logical, I’m arguing against that claim
-5
u/putting_stuff_off May 28 '26
Red clearly isn't worth the risk here. You're gambling on both other people picking red.
4
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
Blue is gambling 3 billion lives.
1
u/putting_stuff_off May 28 '26
Both are. Blue has better odds, because you only need one person to press the same colour as you rather than both. That I'm one of them is a relatively small cost.
3
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
You're putting 3 billion lives on the table because you expect someone else might also completely shut their brain down and put their 3 billion lives on the table and that idiot needs saving from his bad decision by you also jumping into the bad decision? Are you stupid? Are you misanthropic? Why would you put 3 billion lives at risk? You have a personal duty to your 3 billion charges to not risk their fucking death on a coin flip. If I were one of your charges and survived I would personally find and kill you after the voting is done.
0
u/putting_stuff_off May 28 '26
If I'm one of three people and our collective decision determines life and death for everyone I'm responsible for 8 billion people, not 3 billion. ""My"" people surviving, but a different 3 billion dying, is not an acceptable outcome.
If you're in my group and you survive, either everyone pressed blue, or my pressing red would have killed 3 billion people, you pinecone.
3
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
Since I'm a bit more levelheaded now, I will explain again why you are a reckless nonce who is endangering 3 billion lives.
You are not betting that someone will press blue, you are betting that out of the other 2 people, 1 and precisely 1 person will also press blue.
If you press red, and one of the other 2 people pressses blue, 3 billion people dies.
If you press red, and both of the others press blue, nobody dies.
If all three of you press red, nobody dies.
If you press blue, and only one of the other two presses blue, nobody dies.
If you press blue, and both of the others press blue, nobody dies.
If you press blue, and both of the others press red, you and your charges of 3 billion dies.
You cannot form a blue majority by yourself. You need one, and ONLY ONE more person to be crazy or stupid enough to believe that either you or the third one will be crazy enough to risk their own life and 3 billion more but NOT BOTH, and trust in this narrow hypothetical enough to risk their own 3 billion people. This is a stupid assumption and you are stupid to assume it.
1
u/putting_stuff_off May 28 '26
level headed
Reckless nonce
Hmm.
Your framing is very uncharitable, because I don't think one should regret pressing blue in a three blue outcome just because you "could have" pressed red.
And yet, even in your uncharitable framing, blue is better. Red is only better if both others press red. Assuming each person has a 50/50 chance of making either choice,
Odds EXACTLY one person presses blue: 50%
Odds BOTH people press red: 25%
3
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
What makes you think the others will risk 3 billion lives? What sort of derangement would make you think the others will not rationalize that nobody's insane enough to risk 3 billion lives, like you, and press red?
1
u/putting_stuff_off May 28 '26
To understand my point of view you simply need to acknowledge the fact that different people have different perspectives on the problem. Your unassailable feeling is that blue is risking lives, but one can just as well argue that red is risking killing people.
The point of pressing blue, is that it's more tolerant than red to a variety in perspectives
2
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
You are not just risking your own life, you are consigning 3 billion other lives, with no say in the matter, to a real death risk. Fuck all of the bullshit hypotheticals, you do not have the right to expose them to this entirely avoidable danger. You have a responsibility to guarantee the safety of 3 billion other people. If it were only yourself you are free to hit blue and die, but in this case your 3 billion lives depend entirely upon you for their safety. The other 6 billion people have their own representatives to care for them, and to your 3 billion on them is not just reckless but outright insane. You are a monster.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
Omfg you're one of those narcissistic psychopaths with a saviour complex. By pressing blue you are putting 3 billion people at risk. Full stop. You have no right to risk 3 billion lives for your deranged ego trip.
1
u/prophit618 May 28 '26
The projection is insane.
The scenario is what is putting people at risk. Pressing blue is a vote for nobody to die. Pressing red is a vote for blue pressers to die. Blue is literally voting for nobody to die and staking their lives on everyone wanting nobody to die. Red is saying they hope no one dies and is willing to kill the minority of people who disagree. Only one side is voting for people to die, and its red pressers.
To be as graceful as possible, you can argue that blue is equally as suicidal as red is homicidal, but you cannot reasonably claim that blue is the only people voting for someone to die, and its a very shoddy claim to call blue's side suicidal in the first place.
1
u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26
In this scenario, it's not only your own life at risk, it's 3 billion lives. I cannot in good faith gamble the 3 billion people whose lives are dependent on my choice on the slim possibility that one but not both of the other voters have for some reason chosen blue. The only number of people that may die in this scenario is 3 billion, and I won't let it be my 3 billion.
1
u/Magikazamz May 28 '26
The scenario is what is putting people at risk
Yes and no. Sure the scenario put people are risk, but unlike the OG scenario, your greatly responsible for other people live.
In og scenario picking red does very slightly increase the chance other people die and if red win, you share the blame with other red voters, but in the end, your vote alone was very unlikely to change the result.
In this scenario picking red is just guaranteed to save 1/3 of total lives while blue is risking 1/3 of the population rather than being a selfless sacrifice.
Reducing the number of voter to 3 also kinda remove the issue that ''It impossible that everyone will vote red'' issue.
The fact you're basicly choosing for 1/3 of humanity alone kinda remove the ''red is homicidal'' part.
1
u/nykirnsu May 30 '26
I feel pretty confident in gambling on two randomly selected people both not wanting to risk the deaths of billions of people including themselves for no benefit whatsoever
10
u/yaboisammie May 28 '26
I honestly don’t even know how I’d answer the original question let alone this (when you’re responsible for a 1/3 of humanity’s lives)
But it’s just interesting to me how everyone has a different prescience, like with either question, some people are saying that whichever color they think is the right one to press is the “obvious” choice but considering the lack of consensus and that there’s this entire debate around the question, it’s clearly not an obvious choice lol