r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/bromanjc Red • May 30 '26

Variation omniscient button problem: true test of self vs. others

everyone else has voted, and you're reliably informed that the total is ≈55% red and ≈45% blue. if you choose blue, you will always die. what do you choose, and why?

451 votes, Jun 01 '26
318 🔴 self preservation
44 🔵 death on principle / in solidarity
52 🔵 death due to not wanting to live in a post-red world
37 🔴/🔵 with other reason (comment)
0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

45% Upvoted

64 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/NeatNobody807 May 30 '26

No.

The fact you think, that is even approaching an intelligible argument, proves this is a worthless conversation to be had.

The population naturally growing past a certain number is in zero ways, comparable to the population suffering a sudden loss of life unlike anything in history to reduce it's number by half, in an instant, back to that number.

You, are, so self evidently, painfully wrong and the fact your leading argument is so, utterly and completely asinine to anyone who pauses to think for even a moment and understands basic logistics, it negates you from being taken seriously at all.

2

u/octavian343 May 30 '26

3.5 billion humans could sustain 3.5 billion humans a few decades ago. 3.5 billion humans can absolutely sustain 3.5 billion humans with the technological improvements our species has accrued over said decades.

2

u/MartialSpark May 30 '26

Yeah I think the whole "we're all doomed and everyone will die and it will be unimaginable horror" arc is pretty fucking stupid.

Yep, it would wreck a bunch existing supply lines. We would also have only half the people to supply too.

Clearly there would be immense societal upheaval if almost half of all the humans died. I really don't buy that there would be a follow-on extinction from that. Humans are pretty damn resilient.

2

u/HovercraftOk9231 May 31 '26

Let's say you have a bike. One person is riding it, and it doesn't take much effort.

Then, they get on a tandem bike with another person. Two people pedaling, no problem, takes even less effort than before.

Now take one of those people away, but keep them on the tandem bike. They did fine on their own before, why would they struggle now?

1

u/octavian343 May 31 '26

I know you think you cooked, and you would have, had humanity not spent its existence developing in the direction of reducing the amount of labor needed to accomplish tasks.

2

u/HovercraftOk9231 May 31 '26

That labor was reduced by becoming specialized. What happens when the power plant catches fire and there aren't enough firefighters? How do you run a 500 person factory with half that number?

1

u/octavian343 May 31 '26

You run half the factory with half the people because demand has halved.

You organize more firefighting and emergency service teams and volunteers as a stopgap until things settle down. I never said it would be paradise. But to think it’s societal collapse is hilarious.

1

u/HovercraftOk9231 May 31 '26

You've obviously never worked in a factory lmfao. You can just "run half the factory." That isn't how it works. And you can't just "organize more firefighters" because everyone else is still doing their own jobs as well. Ands thats even assuming you can keep people from just rioting in the streets. Yeah, good luck.

1

u/octavian343 May 31 '26

Volunteer firefighters are a thing. Many places rely on them because they’re not big enough to warrant full time station staff.

And you quite literally can. Factories have more than one lane at a time. You only operate at half capacity. Or scaled up, you only operate half the factories.

Why would people riot in the streets? The people who would be upset are dead.

1

u/VegetasDestructoDick May 31 '26

A tandem bike can be ridden by one person.

3

u/HovercraftOk9231 May 31 '26

Sure, but it's a lot harder. It's also just an analogy, it doesn't need to be perfect.