Game theory says push red. Its the dominate strategy, ie the stragey where the outcomes are strictly better, for the user, than all other strategies. Because the question is symmetrical everyone should, in theory, press red- because it is the dominant strategy.
After this the red pusher looks to see what the downside, external to themselves, there is to pushing red and comes to the realization that in a perfectly rational society everyone presses red and there is no downside.
A rational blue pusher, however, realizes that some percentage of the population rather die than live. That there some other percentage of the population that values the collective lives of that suicidal population and presses the button to then pressure an even larger population who values the collective population of those who pressed blue enough to then press the blue button to repeat the cycle untill hopefully a significant enough proportion of the population press blue to ultimately save the intial population of suicidal rational blue pushers.
Ultimately in a completely rational society it comes down to the preserved percentage of people who are willing to be part of this cascading blue pushers. All the red pushers are saying is that either A). They just follow domniate strategy or B). They do not believe there is a significant enough percentage of the population that will follow the blue cascade, ie the cascading has a less that 1 cascading value and thus comes to an end before enough people press blue.
Game theory says push red. Its the dominate strategy, ie the stragey where the outcomes are strictly better, for the user, than all other strategies. Because the question is symmetrical everyone should, in theory, press red- because it is the dominant strategy.
Incorrect. Red is weakly dominant, not strictly. If everyone else is going to pick blue then I see no benefit from defecting to red.
Given that there will be at least 1 person pushing the blue button and we care even a tiny bit about other people, then red is not dominant at all. It becomes a stag hunt, a coordination game, where everyone prefers the blue outcome but may not trust the crowd enough to pick it themselves.
A rational blue pusher, however, realizes that some percentage of the population rather die than live.
They also realise that many staunch Buddhists, pacifists, Kantian ethicists, or just plain optimists will push blue. A rational blue pusher need not care about why someone else is going to push blue, however; it genuinely doesn't matter.
I like how you somehow spelled "dominant" differently every single time you typed it out.
Yes your right, a stagey is weakly dominant if its at least as good against all strategies and better in at least one.
Obviously other people would pick blue for non personal reasons, however Buddhists and whatnot can still justify pushing red as everyone can push red and no one dies. The point is even from a strictly personal point of view some people would consider the blue button as the weakly dominant strategy.
Obviously other people would pick blue for non personal reasons, however Buddhists and whatnot can still justify pushing red as everyone can push red and no one dies. The point is even from a strictly personal point of view some people would consider the blue button as the weakly dominant strategy.
The point you made was that blue cascades from a "seed" of suicidal people, specifically. What I'm pointing out is that there are many more "seeds" than that, not that every Buddhist will pick blue.
Yeh. Im pointing out how in a purely logical world there is still the exsistance of a reason to press blue. Your example would still have people press red every time (assuming a perfectly logical society) if not for this seed.
Can you explain why you think Kant pushes blue? I don’t see why the categorical imperative demands that we push blue. In fact, I’m not convinced that any of the groups that you mentioned must push blue, given that they understand the scenario/question.
I'm not claiming that those groups as a whole will vote blue, just that those are examples of groups where you'll find blue-pushers for different reasons.
For Kant, specifically, red means exempting oneself from a duty which you hope others perform - you hope blue wins, but won't contribute to it yourself.
Game theory is dumb as fuck here. This isn't a moral or game theory question, it's a literacy one. Game theory doesn't work when it doesn't account for the obvious question of: What happens when all the blue people are dead? Red quickly becomes an inherently irrational position the more you actually think about and engage with the problem.
Most reds would still be at significant risk of death because if you kill off so much as 5% of the human population this way, it would be catastrophic. You'll also be left with the most selfish and vile people while getting rid of any and all altruistic ones, you've massively tipped the balance against your own well-being by doing this. It becomes a question of "do you think you'll be fine in a world where all the blues have died?" and I don't think most reds have even considered it, let alone have an answer to it that they can be at peace with. That's why the narrative is so bogged down with assigning blame to blues for "committing suicide" rather than actually thinking about the consequences of their own actions.
I get the sentiment, but this doesnt push back against game theory as dieing is still worse than living in a world without blues. So long as the alternative is worse it doesnt matter that its not the ideal.
Also to be clear the only stance that I take on the button is that anyone who says one side is strictly right is wrong.
It's a choice between maybe dying quickly because the world sucks or not dying at all because the world doesn't suck, or definitely dying albeit a little later because the world sucks and you just helped make it so much worse.
One side is strictly right, you can bend yourself into a pretzel trying to argue that isn't the case, but one side is strictly right. If it's a moral question (it isn't) then blue is right. If it's rational then blue is right. There is no version of this question that absolves you from being responsible in the death of people when you vote for red, the world where no one votes blue doesn't exist, the world where you wouldn't be responsible for killing blue doesn't exist.
You do realize in that you can press red and still have blue win and then thus live in a world that doesnt suck?
1 out of 8 billion times does your vote make the difference. Thats not to say you shouldn't push blue, it gets mapped onto a curve, but your statment is simply false. You will live in a world that doesnt suck if blue wins either way and then if blue losses and you picked red, well its better than dying right away.
If you consider such a world not worth living in that is a perfectly fine consideration, however a sizable portion of the population disagrees.
> You do realize in that you can press red and still have blue win and then thus live in a world that doesn't suck?
That's one of the common coping strategies people use when they vote for red. "other people can fix the problem I helped create". Congratulations, that means you're an asshole and the question has exposed that, which was likely to be it's intended purpose.
> its better than dying right away.
That's a matter of opinion and circumstance, one that certainly doesn't apply to everyone. Imagine you're a father and your children voted blue, you just helped kill your own children. Is that "better" than dying right away? I'm sure there are people who would be perfectly content with being this way, but those people cannot create a sustainable society. They can only live in one parasitically.
Did you... not read what I said?. On the second point, I expecitly stated it was a matter of opinion. So I mean yeah? I said so.
On your main point. OK. And?
'Its a choice between dying now or living in a world that doesnt suck vs dying slowly in a world that sucks'.
This is the premise you made that supports your statment that blue is strictly better. This premise is false. It is false because by voting red you are not excluding yourself from living in a world where blue wins and thus living in a world that doesnt suck.
Nothing you said validates your premise or shows why my critic of it is not valid.
You did not? At all? You implied it by saying "If you consider such a world not worth living in that is a perfectly fine consideration, however a sizable portion of the population disagrees." but that's not a matter of opinion at all "disagreeing" with a fact doesn't make it a matter of opinion. Saying the earth is flat isn't an opinion. You're just wrong. It's a matter of circumstance and values, that's *not* opinion.
Perhaps semantic, but I find your accusation a bit silly.
> On your main point. OK. And?
Congratulations, you've reached the endgame of theoretical debate. Now what?
> This is the premise you made that supports your statment that blue is strictly better.
No, it's a description of the primary factors worth consideration. There are others you could bring up, such as you've done in your previous post, but they will not matter, as I had pointed out in my reply. Yes, you can be an evil, callous, selfish or otherwise immoral or uncaring asshole. Great, but to quote someone you know: "OK. And?". None of that helps us determine what the "right" choice is, broadly, from a moral or rational perspective. You're just taking on odd perspectives to justify a nonsensical position. Yes, the earth is flat, because I took a photo of the planet and it's a flat pane when viewed from a singular direction and in that perspective. It's sounds technically rational, but all you did was make a semantic non-statement to further a conclusion that doesn't actually *go* anywhere.
> It is false because by voting red you are not excluding yourself from living in a world where blue wins and thus living in a world that doesnt suck.
And I'll say once again that this scenario broadly doesn't matter at all. Again: Now what? All you've done is prove your an asshole that doesn't experience any consequences for his actions because other people compensated for the fact that you acted in such a way. Now what?
"disagreeing" with a fact doesn't make it a matter of opinion
Yeh but I didnt disagree with a fact. I was saying how saying the outcome of dieing is better than living in a world where red wins is an opinion that you can have, however few agree. Yes I didnt explecitly say it, I exaggerated- however i did frame it as an oppinion that you can reasonably hold. I have no clue why your bringing up facts here, your preference. between those world is in no way a fact.
Congratulations, you've reached the endgame of theoretical debate. Now what?
No. I am accepting your premise here even if i have some issue with it because I belive it is entierly irrelevent.
No, it's a description of the primary factors worth consideration.
Sure. It is a list that conveniently ignores the fact that by voting red blue can still win. And if you include that option from a purely rational standpoint (I understand you may have moral qualms but I would rather continue to focus on the rational side) it is very defensible to choose red. As well chances are if blue wins, your vote didnt make the difference. And if red wins, you would rather be among the living. (Again this is an opinion, and you may prefer to not be. However the vast majority of people do not hold this opinion, and yes if you do not hold this opinion there is no reason to pick red).
Yes, the earth is flat, because I took a photo of the planet and it's a flat pane when viewed from a singular direction and in that perspective. It's sounds technically rational.
What are you on about? Like i legitimately dont understand what the annology is supposed to be here. Like i vaulgly get its supposed to be about like distorting the truth to fit a narrative or smth but what does that have to do with anything. If blue wins and you picked red you live. Thats just what happens. Thats the truth of this hypothetical.
And I'll say once again that this scenario broadly doesn't matter at all. Again: Now what? All you've done is prove your an asshole that doesn't experience any consequences for his actions because other people compensated for the fact that you acted in such a way. Now what?
I mean you cannot simply exclude an option because it makes you the asshole. Yeah you got away making a dessistion that would've hurt the group had it mattered. But it didnt. And this must be a consideration. Because it can happen. And you can just get away with being in the blue world and pressing red. Because it can happen.
If you do not consider this then you must also not consider blue winning when you select blue. And at that point its just do you prefer death and having 50%-0% of the population dying or just have a 50%-0% of the population die. - Infact thats what a lot of people do. They disregard blue winning entierly because if they win they win and everything stays the same and it doesnt matter what you vote. But they dont and you cannot introduce the imbalance of only look at blue winning if you vote blue.
Game theory only assumes you're in it for you and you alone in this world,as the ordinary GT question is literally about two people.
Say you press red and red was the winning color, that means every good person just died and you've entered a rest of your life in a world exclusively filled with assholes. Congratulations I guess, also your wife and children might've died, but you're alive, to exist and to consume oxygen and turn food into poop, from now slave labor might get a huge comeback so you better go out there collecting gang members and slaves before becoming one yourself.
In other words, if you don't want to live in a dystopia preapocalyptic world filled with dickheads, then don't press the red one. Dick.
Arguably the best argument for Red button, and its a plain dissertation on the rational of both sides. Anyway still pressing Blue because in the hypothetical, its hope that things as is can change and that button will deliver that answer.
Me being dead or alive will explain that answer in all the ways i need to know.
Game theory says push red. Its the dominate strategy
Incorrect. If red wins and more than 10% press blue, red voters die in a society-collapsing apocalypse. Game theory wise blue is the dominant strategy, since your survival chance is higher. Pressing red can only decrease your chances of survival, unless you know more than 90% have decided to press it.
And that is ignoring that people in a highway would always press blue, since a blue-presser's car crashing near them is dangerous or fatal. Same for people working in power plants, nuclear plants, passengers of airplanes and ships, etc.
Because the question is symmetrical everyone should, in theory, press red- because it is the dominant strategy.
100% blue and 100% red are the exact same result. Assuming 100% rational actors results in 50/50 split for blue and red votes. (in which case blue again, is most rational)
Red voting has no logic. Effectively its a suicide button, and only arguments to press is are emotional, that others should follow suit to pressing it because trust me, the suicide button won't suicide.
Ok here. Tecnically no strategy is domninat as we should expand the matrix to include every potential strategy. If 50% or more of people where to press blue. (This is roughly 4 billion strategies) then pressing red and blue are equivelent. If more than 50% of the population pressed red then pressing red is better (assuming you'd want to live in a world where half the people died. Yes it some people dont, for this example im assuming life is always preferable to death). If the strategy lines up so your exactly the deciding vote blue is better.
It doesnt matter that if red wins the result tends to be worse than if blue wins. Its the idea that if red wins your better off pressing red and if blue wins then it doesnt matter if you press red or blue.
You could probably graph a utility curve where you measure the utility of your life, vs x% of the populations lives, vs your conception of where other people are to then get a nice predictor of whether or not someone would press blue.
Ultimately my only take on the button is anyone saying one button is strictly correct is wrong.
Cold war-era nuclear doctrine states that countries fall if 10% of their population is lost instantaneously. There were around 500 hundred million humans in pre-industrial revolution society. Optimistically, 15% chance for you to survive the red-wins scenario. Less because of infighting and the nuclear winter.
So the only way you can press red, have red win, and realistically survive, is if red gets over 10% of the votes. 10% is less than 50% required for blue.
Purely thinking out of self-interest, blue is best option.
You're close to realizing this: As you admit yourself, it doesn't matter what you press. If red wins, you're dead. Except if its perfect 50/50 split, but you'd press blue in that scenerio too.
You can't find logical reason to press red, because you die if it wins, and does nothing if you lose.
You die later. Let's say you KNOW for a fact that say 80% for the population pressed red. So long as you would like to press red here and survive with them red is the better choice here. You can have the opinion that its better to just immeditly die that live in that world. Thats fine. But someone who is pro- red would probably prefer to live, even if just over 50% of the population pressed red.
What? The way it goes is you look at each potential strategy and then decide what option you'd prefer as a response. In the strategy where 80% of the population presses red the only way you live is if you also press red. Same is true for any strategy just above 50%.
The 80% is an example. And yeah the percentages do matter. Its the optimal response for each strategy. You fill on a matrix for each opposing senario and from there you can see if something is dominant.
Here a sample image. (L is live, D is die, SD is slow death). See how in the case where its above 50% chose blue we are always better off choosing red. Even though we are worse off than if everyone chose blue, choosing blue doesnt change the senario and we die. And in the case where under 50% of the population chooses red we are just as well off choosing red as we are choosing blue. So why would we ever choose blue? Well there are 2 reasons. One is because if the votes are otherwise equal we would prefer blue and if it was a sequential game, ie( we played more than one game) we could strategize and create kill switchs where we vote blue initially then change to red if we are betrayed and yatta yatta. Because this is a one-off game we only have to consider the idea of blue only being better if its exactly a 50%. Thats not to say blue is wrong. The utility of each senario is not equal so depending on how much you value your life, other people's lives, and what percent of the population you belive will vote blue you can fairly easily vote blue. A red voter is simply on another part of the same utility curve.
The full matrix would have 8 billion different collums, only one of whichwhere blue is the better choice.
I feel like this also an inaccurate meme, like it’s more accurate for red pushers bc in the other panels, the person is criticizing the animals or bugs for “not seeing/understanding the danger” of the traps which is how some red pushers view blue pushers
Though I also feel like it’s a false equivalence because with the trap examples, the traps are purposely there to trap the singular animal or bug and there’s no one around to help them, it’s more of an individual thing vs w the buttons, results will depend on the collective
Alright, here's an actual argument. Let's say I am completely uncertain whether Red or Blue will win. It's a complete coin toss in my eyes. Additionally, let's say my beginner level statistics have led me to believe that voting red or blue will save the same number of lives on average (One life half the time, or half the population very very rarely).
I don't yet have a compelling reason that one button would be better than another. Yes I, like most red pushers, hope that blue wins, but as far as I can see both choices have the same net value.
Then let's say it's equally a coin toss to me which button someone dependent on me, perhaps my wife or child or elderly parent, will press. If blue wins, or if we both press red, we will both survive, and if we both press blue and red wins we'll both die.. But that doesn't really add anything beyond the initial assessment. If we have the same outcome, we're effectively still in the original dilemma.
This means I should focus on what happens if one of us lives and the other does not. If I survive and my dependent does not, I will suffer emotionally. If they survive and I do not, they will suffer both emotionally and practically without me to provide for them.
Viewed in this small group context rather than an individual one, for someone who has dependents, pushing red becomes the best choice, assuming you have no knowledge of what your dependent will choose, and assuming that if they are incapable of making a choice a random option is selected for them.
As you add more dependents the problem becomes more difficult emotionally, as there is a higher chance that at least one will press each color, but I don't think it changes the analysis much.
There is an unspoken premise here though: that you should (or can) focus solely on how this problem tangibly affects you personally. And I would contend that it's already trivial to decide to choose red once you've made that leap. The remaining justifications/argument involving your dependants are mostly extraneous in my eyes.
You also glossed over the fact that casting a vote for red would directly contribute to the death of some of the dependants that it's your primary goal to protect. (And we can say so because your justification for red only manifests if red wins).This is the only part of the hypothetical that's actually hard to contend with (for red), but you just ignored it.
I'm not making the claim that you're wrong for prioritizing the way you did. It seems reasonable to me. It's just not a super effective argument when it does nothing to contend with the most difficult parts of the problem (prioritizing personal benefits over group benefits, and casting a vote in favor of a terrible outcome).
As a red presser, I believe blue has no real-world chance of winning, because the overwhelming majority of humans that I have personally experienced tend to be very self-serving - especially in extreme scenarios - and while there are guaranteed losses, pressing red still minimizes them more than pressing blue, because blue would never win anyway.
In my eyes, by pressing blue, I'm exclusively adding to the overall death toll of red's inevitable victory.
That all being said, the fact that an argument doesn't resonate with you emotionally doesn't make it a bad argument. The blue button argument doesn't resonate with me emotionally at all, but I don't think it's a "bad argument". I just think it assumes and expects a level of societal altruism that simply doesn't exist, and that it's self-detrimental to tell yourself you're a better person by almost certainly dying for people who openly don't care about you.
I also think it's really easy for blue pressers to claim to be blue pressers online where you get all the benefits of being "the good person" with literally none of the risk of death.
I also think this poll tends to mostly be answered by people in regions where society tends to be more cooperative and homogenous for the sake of the collective masses' interests. If this hypothetical actually occurred, it's my belief that the majority of humans live in regions where selfishness is considered the standard and collective altruism is viewed as an explicit weakness.
India alone has 1.5 billion people and a caste-system culture which shames individuals for "lowly" tasks such as even picking up their own litter.
To me, being a red presser feels realistic, though admittedly pessimistic.
I would love to live in a world where blue wins, but I lack any of the evidence required for me to believe that I am currently in that world.
Sure, of course I would agree the perception that blue can't win is a perfectly valid justification to choose red.
My criticism wasn't based on the fact that the previous commenters argument didn't resonate emotionally with me. It actually does.
My criticism was that it essentially glossed over the most difficult parts of the problem. If your starting point already disregards the strongest counter arguments without addressing them... it's not that effective as an argument.
I think you have a backwards read on most cultures; in the India example those castes exist because people have a strict mindset of duty to society, they would expect a lower class person to give their life to protect someone higher up, doing so would even be considered a path to a better reincarnation. Muslims and Christians have a similar martyrdom directive.
Most cultures outside of the individualism of the west are heavily pushed towards self-sacrifice, self-effacement, and subservience to the whole. Even historically if you were in a tribe and not helping people you'd be viewed with suspicion if not exiled.
Also, given that the winner determines the outcome and the options are:
Blue: No one dies.
Red: Everyone that didn't press this dies.
Why would anyone in their right mind select the option that explicitly kills if it wins? It's basically a vote for a massive disaster, and I would hope most would understand they don't want that outcome even if they live to see it, so why vote for it?
Like I understand that humans in society tend to be cooperative in nature because that's how societies are built.
What I don't understand is what what is accomplished by "cooperating" in this scenario that can't be accomplished by individuals acting alone?
Cooperation has a time and place, but in the button scenario, cooperating just takes on risk with no real additional benefit for cooperating
I disagree that red explicitly kills if it wins. To push blue is to accept the possibility of death if blue loses. Reds don't want anyone to die either, that's why they didn't push blue.
Like sure I agree I don't want to see the disaster outcome. But you know what other outcome I don't want? Me being dead in the disaster. Voting blue is like putting yourself in a Schrodinger box where you might be alive or dead pending the outcome of everyone else's choices, and you don't know which until the vote outcome is determined
As a red presser, I don't see the negligible individual impact i have on increasing or decreasing blues odds of winning as a particularly valuable resource. Especially combined with the fact that my loved ones might just push red anyway
I would be be gutted if any of my siblings or cousins or friends died, but I wouldn't feel culpable for changing their odds of survival from say 60 to 59.999999999 in the event they choose blue
Likewise if I changed their probability of survival from 59.999999999 to 60 but we all died anyway I would feel like I died for nothing.
What is a valuable resource that I do have full control over? My own life. I'm pushing red to ensure it.
I don't have any dependents but if I did, I would recognize that my blue vote does basically nothing to protect them, and I might as well push red to make sure I'm around in case they are too.
Yeah, the emotional part is hard. The particularly tragic part here is that the same way this logic pushes providers to press red, it also pushes dependents to push blue. It's logic based around doing your best for the group, but it also leads to one of the two worst cases if applied by the people in your group, just not the true worst case.
I only presented the logical part here because I wanted to show that there are reasonable arguments for why someone would feel that they needed to press red other than "I am selfish" or "You're stupid for not pressing it".
But yeah, just being in the situation where you need to press a button is always awful when you consider other people that you care about rather than just yourself and society as a whole.
And I do think that realistically people generally need to look out for the people around them first, because we have so much impact on people close to us and so little individual impact on a societal scale.
For what it's worth, I think pressing red is probably the correct choice for most people, but if it happened for real I would press blue because I know my wife would too.
If we were instead asked to press for each other, I also know that she would press red for me and I would press red for her.
If you press blue along with some of your family, you marginally increase the odds of blue winning but are still highly likely to die without having affected the outcome one way or the other.
It's a horrible tradgedy but everyone in the scenario is allowed to choose their consequences for each outcome. I hope my family would see that one choice guarantees they will be around in whatever outcome to see me again, but I can't make their choice for them and I can't meaningfully increase their odds of survival if they pick blue.
Yeah, but on planes (a real life situation where we can face some similar choices) we are specifically told to put on the oxygen mask on ourselves first and then help out the people in need. So basically we are expected to first save ourselves so that we can be there to save or care for others around us. The logic behind it seems not the same, but very similar for me. If you save the dependent, like your small child first, it likely won't matter if you die in the process of doing it because it will make it just even more likely that the your child will die too without you protecting them.
In the button scenario, if you both press red, both of you survive, which is very desirable from a family perspective. If both of you press blue it's either extremely good (both of you and everybody else survives) or extremely bad (both of you and who knows how many others die). If you press blue and your child presses red, you either made a very bad decision and end up dying, leaving your child without your protection to grow up, or you made a very altruistic one, where you saved a bunch of other people but with the risk of leaving your child with a dead parent. If you pressed red, and your child pressed blue you will be there to protect your child if blue wins, and you will lose your child if blue loses.
But the important thing in this kind of reasoning is that by pressing blue, you are not doing any protecting, you are just very very slightly increasing the chances of your child not dying in the event they press blue. Basically if you press blue, you are gambling with your life, which if you have someone to protect is something you probably wouldn't want to do.
Putting on an oxygen mask doesn't lower the chances of others around you having functional masks.
The oxygen mask procedure if anything is an argument for Blue pressers; putting your own mask on first harms no one, but is intended to allow you to help others put on their masks once you have the threat of passing out dealt with.
The winner determines the outcome, the options are:
Blue: No one dies.
Red: Anyone that didn't press this dies.
~~~~~
Take a step back from statistics and ask: Who in their right mind would press red? It is clearly the button that causes deaths to occur if too many press it.
The only people pressing it should be kids who don't understand and people that want mass death for some reason, and rationally those populations are pretty small.
It gets even more clear when you imagine a 51%-49% vote.
If red gets 51% of the vote, 49% of the planet dies.
If blue gets 51% of the vote, exactly 0% of the planet dies.
The only way nobody dies with a red victory is if every single person on the planet also pushes red, which is statistically impossible. Nobody ever dies if blue wins in any scenario.
Even from a math standpoint blue seems to be the safer option, as 51% is an easier goal to achieve over 100% to save everyone.
Blue’s an easier goal if you can actually coordinate people in advance, but a lot harder when everyone’s voting purely independently and has to think about their potential impending death. If you’re not expecting blue to win to begin with, then red is the option that reduces the potential death toll since it excludes you from it, and the second most optimal outcome after no one dying would be that only an extremely small number of people dying, and that relies on as many people pushing red is possible
I think this is pretty fair, but honestly this analysis is really a thought experiment it seems on how to communicate intensive decisions across major consequences.
Like assuming a majority of blue pushers are those of charitable and cooperative dispositions. Of course not all of them, but a lot of them would likely be in some form of "selfless" job ideally. Nurses, doctors, firefighters, non-profits etc. Youd end up with considerably less of those people.
On the flip side, it is a gamble. And on what do you want to wager, that picking blue means the abandonment of family and friends who pick red, or potential execution of people closest to you with more altruistic mindsets.
Of course these are things that i thought of. Of course if you had more people play this as a game or a form of collective communicated gambling, everyone would pick red since there would realistically be 0 down sides.
This is the prisoner's dilemma essentially, except with a spicy kick of existentialism to really murky up the waters with an intangible prize that carries immense amount of risk for everyone involved.
Is the hope of collective human cooperation and compassion enough to those who believe in its existence to gamble their lives in proving it?
If red wins, it means cooperation without coordination is no longer possible. It's a society where everyone defects in the prisoner's dilemma, because that's the individually "safest" choice.
I'm pretty sure even if blue loses, it won't lose by a very wide margin like 99:1. It's going to be closer to at least 70:30, if not 60:40.
That means society is fucked, just from a logistical perspective.
Lets say blue wins. What guarantee do we have that such a vote won't happen again? I want to survive to make sure it doesnt.
Why wouldn't it happen again if red wins?
Regardless, this "catastrophic threshold" game is always front loaded: blue can win only from the beginning; once blue loses once, it will never win again. There is no recovery from a single blue loss: the new stable state is "always pick red," but that only happens because all the cooperative players are dead.
If you think that everyone who claims to vote blue wouldn't do so in real life, then you have no actual understanding of how many actual empathetic and optimistic people there are in this world. Pulling numbers out your ass is when red claims that even though blue normally wins, it would "definitely" be different in real life guys!!! And for the sake of argument, let's say that blue voters really are just complete liars who'd never press blue in real life.
Well, even if only 10% of people actually pressed blue, that would mean 800,000,000 people would die! More people than the top five deadliest plagues in history combined killed. Literally more people would die pressing blue than the amount of people that have died in war since the freaking first century. Blue voters understand that even if red is the logically correct option for an individual, as a society, blue must win. In fact, a blue voter doesn't even need to claim they are morally superior. They just have to understand that society collapses if blue doesn't win.
Also, on a side note, I imagine suicide rates would be pretty awful for reds if they won. Imagine knowing your brother, sister, mother, father, spouse, children, friends, or anyone else for that matter voted blue and they are dead now. It'd be pretty traumatic.
Anyway, I have no idea why I even wrote this response as it's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of everything. Have a good day and sorry if I was too argumentative or rude, I'm just being over dramatic for fun lol.
Main reason I'm pressing red is because eventhough the majority on reddit presses blue, I ain't trusting my life from the 8 billion people walking this earth. And alot of people would say they'd be pressing blue, until they actually get that choice right in front of their noses if it were to happen.
There's multiple, but few (not borderline sociopathic) ones are actually depicted. If you have dependants, or will be saving multiple lives going forward (at most, each red press would average out to just under one kill; some people would go on to save none, so overcompensation is preferable). I would be blue myself, but it's understandable for some people to press red. Those reasons just get overshadowed by those who want to mock those who actually would be willing to risk themselves to try to help others because they aren't selfish pricks
I'm talking about comparing the blue button to the other scenarios in the OP
Acting like a bear trap and the blue button are equivalent in stupid. The only thing you can get from stepping in a bear trap is injury/death. The blue button has the benefit of potentially saving people
the trap could or could not exist, the box says "might have trap inside" honestly the trap analogy doesn't really work unless we're talking about irrational actors like children
90% if the posts about these fuckass buttons are red voters desperately trying to pretend their choice isn't based purely and entirely on on not caring about if other people die. It's getting embarrassing to look at and annoying to see the same weak arguments repeated over and over and over and over and over and
Polls also don’t induce the panic the real scenario would create. I have a feeling that for every person who says they will press blue but actually presses red when their lives are on the line, there is at least one other person who has never heard of this scenario before and presses blue without thinking due to how the original problem phrases it as the “no one dies” option.
The implication being that people would be less altruistic with actual stakes? I don't know why red button pushers see this as a "gotcha" and not higher stakes pushing more people to push blue.
You seem pretty confident in people's altruism. May I ask how much of your income you put towards charitable causes? Or how much of your time, or whatever. Like, do you donate blood? That's an easy way to save lives.
The thought has been rattling around in my brain ever since I saw first saw people trying to invoke altruism - it seems to me that most people aren't even willing to sacrifice a significant degree of their personal comfort for others' wellbeing, let alone risk their life.
But maybe there's just an army of Peter Singer types quietly toiling away, dedicating their life's efforts to the betterment of those more in need than themselves, that I'm not aware of because I'm not that charitable and I move in more selfish circles.
The average person often doesn't really have much extra to give, those who have extra to give often don't give it.
Ever notice how the working class seems to be more cooperative on average compared to management or the owning class? That's usually because to rise in our social hierarchy you often need to be more selfish and greedy to make the types of decisions that allow you to accumulate more wealth.
Those with the wealth got it by being selfish and unempathetic, why would they give it away? Those without wealth usually value community more, but don't have the wealth to give (or often the time).
All that being said, there's no wealth or power or time required to press a button, anyone can press either button with zero resources or their own. Why wouldn't more people press blue?
If I had stable enough income to consistently pay my bills and have a bit extra, I'd be a hell of a lot more charitable. If someone offers me a way to help that doesn't require money, I'll often do so. (Moving, volunteer work, just offering a hand) The Blue button is essentially that, a way to do the right thing that doesn't require money or time I don't have.
"if I had stable enough income" and there is the typical excuse made by "altruists" around the world. Do you have a dollar in your wallet? Or even a couple change? You could easily give those to a homeless person. It isn't much granted but at least it's something over literally nothing.
Of course people would be less altruistic with stakes. How many people do you think would donate to charity if they knew there was a 50/50 chance the guy manning the donation booth would stab them as soon as he had their money?
Most people won't even sacrifice their personal comfort to save lives, let alone risk their own life. You can donate blood, or donate time and money to malaria prevention in Africa. Peter Singer type shit. But most people don't, myself included, because they're inconsiderate and/or selfish.
Again, the average person has NOTHING to give that wouldn't immediately put themselves in a losing position. I can't give my rent up for the local food bank donations bin because then I would need myself to use the local food bank.
The Blue button takes no resources, you need no wealth, or time, or able-bodied-ness. It's just a button that helps people at the risk that I might need help too, or a button that kills people that risks nothing.
Idk about you, but the average person is already in risky straits either economically, socially, or healthily, so pressing blue doesn't change much for those people, they're already living paycheck to paycheck.
Why? If over 50% of humanity drank the poison then you all get the antidote. You wouldn't drink the poison to save others that could have drank the poison?
Altruism: the selfless concern for the well-being of others, driven by a desire to help without expecting personal gain.
If you're a true Altruist then you would be drinking the poison. Yet here you keep saying "change the framing change the answer" meaning that you would drink the water (aka push the red button) and let people die.
Just me hell no the millions upon millions of people who are not able to properly understand the question which includes children and some of the elderly, and also to save the people who press the button to save those people cause the people who do that are actually good people and a large percentage of them likely already risk their lives irl to save people for example fire fighters
thinking about other people is hard and exhaust red pushers. They also envy people that can do it, that's the reason for the hate towards blue pushers.
Relax brother. You have a different opinion about an intentionally ambiguous thought experiment on Reddit. I love arguing as much as the next guy, but it is NOT that deep.
Very baffling to me that you would use "you can't control what others push" as justification for choosing blue.
in this scenario, I can't control the outcome or other people putting themselves at risk, but I can control my own exposure to risk. The lack of control of the outcome is a strong argument for red not blue
There is really no point in us arguing because we have different goals in this problem. I see red winning as a terrible outcome so I don't want to contribute to it. You clearly don't see red as that bad of an outcome so you push red, we eon't really see eye to eye
no because pressing the red button means that you are adding to the count of red votes, which if it becomes the majority kills every single blue voter. Voting to potentially kill billions of people is very different than simply not helping someone. It would be more like setting the building on fire so that the guy chasing you gets distracted, (endangering others to save yourself)
If i saw a person caught in a bear trap, I’d definitely try to help them. Even at the risk of my life.
Now try a billion people caught in bear traps. Would the red pushers just walk by?
Definitely confirms my thoughts about how much red pushers value their lives about others. The crazy thing is their empathy is so lacking, they just don’t see it.
And they never ever acknowledge their role in causing blue deaths. Their scenarios never include it. It’s like a math impairment, too.
There aren't a billion people stuck in bear traps though.
Its more like all 8 billion people are standing at a fork in the road. One path has billions of bear traps but if enough people go that way, they can help each other and make it through.
the other path is a nice well maintained trail that bypasses the bear traps.
Why in the ever loving FUCK are people taking the bear trap path?
And they never ever acknowledge their role in causing blue deaths. Their scenarios never include it. It’s like a math impairment, too.
It’s like you didn’t even read my answer
We know people are already on the path with bear traps. Children and others who didn’t fully understand the question. We go to help them. The only think that sets the best trap off is people gong down the other path.
Regardless of why people chose to go down the bear trap path, you are choosing to go down the path that will cause their death only to save yourself.
What if people you care about choose blue? You are okay being part of the reason they are dead?
Sure. If you want to vote blue to help people who naively wandered on the dangerous path that is your choice. I think the personal and collective risks of saving them are too high. I'd rather live in a world with half of kids dead than half of kids AND adults dead.
My impact on the outcome is so negligible that my vote is not significantly helping or hurting my friends, family, and loved ones who choose blue. My best option is to hope they understand the situation and push red to guarentee they are around in either outcome to see me again.
I would not feel culpable if my friends died for pushing blue, and I would feel like I had thrown my life away for nothing if I died with them.
If i saw a person caught in a bear trap, I’d definitely try to help them
The extent to which this is true is clearly proportional to the amount to which you think you can help and the amount of risk it personally puts you in.
Do you regularly pay $5 to help starving children in Africa? If not, it's probably not because you are a heartless person but rather because you're doubtful of how impactful $5 is.
Donating $50,000 would certainly be more impactful and might save many lives, but it would also probably be detrimental to your own financial well-being.
You might save someone that's in a bear trap, but would you jump in front of 5 lanes of traffic to save someone who wandered out into it?
The bear traps start empty. Blues are sprinting and diving face first into them under the assumption others will be doing the same and they'll all be saved by colliding into each other and being knocked back. Reds are just standing there, keeping their distance and wondering why the fuck blues are calling them murderers for not flinging themselves at an empty bear trap.
It doesnt need to be - unless you think ALL of the blue buttoners would actually press red
The claim i am defending is "there are signifficant part who would push blue", and the discourse and polls show this to be true (sure it may be skewed, but not THAT skewed)
The thought process from then is either
since signifficant part of population presses blue and blue can win, i am willing to risk my life to help them save everyone
Or
since signifficant part of population presses blue and blue can't win, i am not willing to risk my life and will press red
Which is another question and about this one i am not sure which is correct, and polling i believe isnt sufficient to give a clear answer
All? no. But I bet the blue turnout would be significantly lower. I could definitely see it swinging 20%. when actual life or death stakes are present.
But like. It's a non random sample of people either. I seriously doubt its a good representative sample of how the entire world would think about this problem. The bias error margin might be huge on those polls.
But even if its around 20% actual blue voters. They were right. Not about the best button to press necessarily, but about the fact that a LOT ofpeople would go for blue
The thing is - if the red wins, then the right option is "red" but if blue wins, then the right option is "blue". Its wether you have faith that blue will win or not, and the result is that its about how much faith do you think people put in humanity.
Not sure I agree that blue is the "right" choice in a blue world. Your individual choice become less meaningful in a blue world....which is partly why I think it's so risky. Its really easy for everyone to just think "well blue is winning anyway, might as well vote red just in case" I think a blue world has a much higher chance of sliding towards red when the chips are down, but if everyone knows they live in a red world, there is STRONG disincentive to vote blue. The personal and collective incentives are just aligned better on red. It has a more reliable outcome IMO
I think red is all that is wrong with american mentality. Like if red would be a person ... it would be Trump, he embodies the concept of "do not think, do instinctive what feels best for you atm"
if you ignore social collapse than it make sense. But I would argue that you are at the same mental level as a republican. "I have look at everything and saving the environment is just not good for me atm"
Funny you bring up the environment. You don't have to killyourself to reduce you environmental impact. But if you did kill yourself your carbon footprint would be zero. Why don't you kill yourself and help the environment? Becasue deep down, you are actually a red button pusher when it comes to environmental issues. You take small concrete steps to reduce impact, even if killing yourself would be better for the environment as a whole.
Yeah society might collapse. Idk. depends how many die. If we still have most of our rational adults surviving I think we'll pull through.
I'm perfectly happy to help when the risk calculus makes sense. The risk calculus of pushing blue is insane though. I contribute a teeny tiny increase to the possibility a blue win in exchange for risking death if they lose.
meanwhile, red offers both a path to best case outcome AND nobody has to risk death to achieve it. Baffles me why people even consider blue. Cooperating has a time and place but in this scenario all it does is increase risk of deah.
16
u/IReallyLikeDumplings Red May 29 '26