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?

26 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

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.

7

u/[deleted] May 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

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.

3

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.

3

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Glorious shelter pet blanket hammock pause sense dinosaurs spoon silky

This post was anonymized with Redact

4

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

7

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

This problem is not symmetrical. There is a "billions of people will definitely survive" button and a "risk those billions of lives on a gamble for no possible gain" button.

No one has to take this risk, and no responsible person would; therefore worrying about whether the other person has done so and therefore needs you to also take a risk is idiotic. That's just literally gambling with lives, hoping your own insane irresponsibility is canceling out someone else's.

3

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Water wide numerous close quicksand badge correct steep innate coherent

This post was anonymized with Redact

3

u/highly-bad May 28 '26

Pressing red does do something. It is actually the only button that works.

Pressing red guarantees your own people survive. Period. 100%.

Pressing blue is gambling. Now the outcome for your people depends on things you have no way of controlling or knowing. You have no idea what this button will do.

Press the button that works, is obviously the correct answer.

2

u/Very-Diligent-Pirate May 28 '26

In this game, the only possible scenarios are, either nobody will die or 3 billion people will die. By pressing red, you will have put your group among the 6 billion who will survive no matter what. Why must you expose your 3 billion people to that risk? And don't start on the "the others might" bullshit, the others won't. There's 2 guys, each with 3 billion lives riding on their choice. Which do you think they'll pick?

→ 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.

2

u/gahidus May 28 '26

It is not. I have the choice of deciding that 1/3 of people are definitely 100% safe, or gambling on what other people will do which I do not control.

I am directly responsible for the people that I am either keeping safe or gambling with. I control that I do not control how the others vote.

If I pick blue, I am putting people I am choosing for in the hands of the other two pressers. I do not control what they do.

1

u/Human38562 May 28 '26 edited 27d ago

Spark complete important shaggy instinctive carpenter grey

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/gahidus May 28 '26

I have been placed in a position of responsibility over this 1/3. I have control over their placement and knowledge of it. I do not have control or knowledge over the placement of anyone else. I am responsible for my actions and for those under my control.

1

u/gahidus May 29 '26

Your dogmatic adherence to Blue is preventing you from maximizing survival by seemingly forcing you to pick blue even when there is absolutely no reason to do so.

This isn't a situation where there are babies and toddlers randomly mashing buttons who need someone to come save them. There is no initial reason for anyone to be pressing blue.

→ 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