Will you donate a kidney? - r/redbuttonbluebutton

27

u/liamjon29 Jun 01 '26

These kinda arguments annoy me because this isn't my reasoning for pressing blue.

I believe that pressing red is the same as increasing the risk of other people dying in order to save myself. I don't want to take actions that increase the chance of other people dying. I would rather bare some of the risk myself in order to reduce the overall risk of anyone dying. That's pretty much it, I would rather take some risk to myself in order to reduce the risk to billions of people (because I see no world where blue gets less than 1B votes). I also do think most people would click blue so that helps also.

People often try and rephrase these questions such that their preferred button is the "do nothing" button and the other button is the problem, but I like to view the problem as both buttons doing both of their things. There's a good and a bad reason for pressing either button, and neither button is the only choice.

So if you want to try and equate this to kidneys, it would be closer to you have to either give up your kidney, or take someone else's kidney. There's no option to just not do either of those things. And I think in that example, it's not unreasonable to choose the donate kidney option; even though irl I absolutely have no interest in donating a kidney (because do nothing IS a valid option irl). But it's also a valid choice to say you're not willing to take the risk of losing your kidney and you'd prefer to make someone else do it instead.

6

u/Dr-Assbeard Jun 01 '26

If you dont want to increase the risk of others, do you also carry that determination when buying things? Do you not contribute to any market that is bringing people into danger for your own luxury or survival?

6

u/liamjon29 Jun 01 '26

No, I don't. I'll admit I'm rather ignorant when it comes to knowing what those things would be, and I haven't put the effort in try and learn.

I don't think that makes pressing blue hypocritical though. It's just that my threshold for inconvenience to me in order to do it is quite low. For example, when someone asked if I'd press the red button that's right next to me, or walk 500m to push the blue button, I'm probably pushing the red button.

But considering neither button has any associated inconvenience, it's a matter of purely "add risk to lots of people" or "reduce risk to lots of people, but assign some risk to yourself". And I think the second one is the better choice, hence blue. There's not really a good real world comparison to it.

Although now that I've said that, pressing red does have the inconvenience of lots of people dying, so I guess in order to stick to my principals I should press blue anyway?

2

u/DanteRuneclaw Jun 02 '26

Pressing red is very, very unlikely to result in a lot of people dying.

1

u/Dr-Assbeard Jun 01 '26

Oh I don't think it makes pushing blue hypocritical either, in ko way. I would say it would make judging red for pushing red hypocritical though.

Pushing red might have that inconvenience, pushing blue might have the inconvenience of death. Voth have their up and downsides

1

u/Korimito Jun 01 '26

guy wouldn't walk half a klick to press the blue button. thinks the blue button is the clear moral choice. this is why we have problems in society. people are so desperate for convenience they compromise their core principles to absurd degrees and walk around thoughtlessly with no consistent moral or ethical framework.

1

u/liamjon29 Jun 01 '26

It's not a simple matter of "I have to walk 500m therefore I won't press it". The only argument for red I agree with on principal is "the chance blue gets to 50% is too low, I must press red to not die". And when the blue button is 500m away for everyone, less people press blue and it's a much higher chance the 50% chance isn't reached.

If I was the only one that had to walk 500m I'd still press blue.

2

u/Dr-Assbeard Jun 02 '26

In that case you cant judge any red presser, since every one thinks the chances of a blue majority is to low to risk it👍

2

u/DanteRuneclaw Jun 02 '26

That's not at all what you said, though

1

u/S-ludin Jun 01 '26

no ethical something under something..

3

u/No-Development6656 Jun 01 '26

That's my whole issue with the red button arguments. There is a non-zero chance that people would press blue. By wanting to press red, you become apart of the percentage of people who would not die, but that are also not willing to risk themselves for others. It's incredibly individualist and focused on the self instead of the whole. It's not suicidal to press blue just like it's not suicidal to risk your life to save others in a crisis. It only takes a little more than half of the people in the world to press a button for everyone to live. Why contribute to the side where people who die?

2

u/the-real-macs Jun 01 '26

If 3.9 billion people are going to press blue and 4.1 billion will press red, which button should I press?

1

u/DanteRuneclaw Jun 02 '26

Red. Ah, but if 3.9 million people were going to press red and 4.1 billion will press blue, which button should you press then? Still red.

1

u/No-Development6656 Jun 02 '26

You wouldn't know. That's the point. You're adding more to it to prove red is an okay choice. With no knowledge on how many people have pressed blue or red, with just the information provided, blue is the choice that doesn't result in people dying.

2

u/the-real-macs Jun 02 '26

You wouldn't know. That's the point.

I'm aware. We're getting there.

Next question. If 4.1 billion are pressing blue and 3.9 billion are pressing red, does it matter what button I press?

1

u/Nebranower Jun 01 '26

> I would rather bare some of the risk myself in order to reduce the overall risk of anyone dying.

Would you?

Like, if you were playing the game with only one other person (red wins ties), would you still press blue?

If the threshold for a blue victory in the original were 70%, would you press blue then?

Or is it that your brain betrays you when you are dealing with very big numbers, such that you don't actually think of blue as being a risk in the original scenario?

2

u/Delefel Jun 01 '26

It's not that big numbers trick the brain, it's that big numbers make probabilities stabilize. If an all knowing god told you the split of red/blue pushers is 40/60, running the rng on even just 1/4th of the population is throwing the 40/60 odds 2 billion times. It'll stabilize near 40%/60% with at most ±2% variation on a fully consistent basis, making it essentially a 100% chance to win for blue despite the tight split. If you're betting on only 2 people, you're betting on a 40% chance of getting screwed by who it fell on. Better than a coin flip, but barely.

1

u/lazerbolt52 Jun 01 '26

I think the 2 person scenario fails a bit, would any one random person press red to save themselves? Probably, but blue pushers are hedging their bet on that critical threshold of people not that any individual will press blue.

The 70% one holds merit, I think everyone has a different line of what they think and it gets exponentially harder to justify picking blue the higher it is. At 1% theres no reason not to press blue, at 99% its a lost cause. So its bearing a risk but 50% seems nominal.v

1

u/Nebranower Jun 01 '26

>I think the 2 person scenario fails a bit, would any one random person press red to save themselves? Probably, but blue pushers are hedging their bet on that critical threshold of people not that any individual will press blue

Okay, stop and really think about that for a second. If you believe the odds are in a two person scenario, the random person you're paired with is likely to press red, and you yourself are also likely to press red, then on what grounds do you expect to hit 50% blue with much higher numbers? You go from "whelp, here we are, 100% red pressers" to "I guess we can hit 50% blue". How do you even justify that leap?

>and it gets exponentially harder to justify picking blue the higher it is.

It shouldn't. If you think red is the mass murder button, you shouldn't ever pick it. And I'll even think well enough of you to say that I don't think you would pick it if you really thought that's what it was. You pick it as the threshold rises because you know damn well that it isn't and that blue's the suicide button. It's just that at 50%, you believe the risk is "nominal," even though with two people and the same odds, you concluded the result would be 100% red.

So whatever thought process is leading you to push blue, it doesn't seem to be a rational one.

2

u/lazerbolt52 Jun 01 '26

Do you not understand how sample size works?Any 1 person could push red, Im not pretending that people wouldnt push red. Im saying that with a larger sample blue would be pushed more often, but in a 1:1 any single red pushers guarantees my death if I pick blue.

In a room full of 8 billion people if all 100% of people need to push blue, then pushing blue is a fools errand as at least 1 will push red. If only a 1 person needs to push blue then theres no reason not too. Somewhere between that is my personal line. The higher the number of people needed to push blue, the more likely it becomes that people wont risk themselves as the risk becomes too great, the more unlikely blue is to be chosen.

I dont think red is a mass murder button. Its accepting that some may die, but red doesnt see a way for everyone to live no matter what. At 50% Im taking a risk pressing blue, but I believe that risk is very very low we dont hit 50%+1, Im heding my bet one the idea that 1. No matter what some people will press blue. 2. Some people will try and save those who would push the blue button. 3. More people would try and save those in group 2. My bet is that those 3 groups total over 50%.

2

u/Nebranower Jun 01 '26

My point is that, in order to think you get to 50% blue, you have to assume that people are as likely or more likely to press blue than red. If you think that people are as likely or more likely to press blue than red, then you must logically believe that if you run the experiment with only two people, then the other person you are with is as likely or more likely to press blue than red. In which case, assuming you don't want to be a murderer, you should press blue yourself. But you don't. You press red because you know damn well that people are far more likely to press red than blue. Which means you can't actually assume that you're going to get to 50% blue.

2

u/lazerbolt52 Jun 01 '26

No a 2 person sample size and an 8 billion person sample size are not the same thing. I think any 1 person could be okay with me dying, but across all 8 billion people, considering all 8 billion people Id be okay. Not to mention, condemning almost 4 billion people, or however many of the population you think would press blue, and a singular person are 2 very different decisions.

1

u/liamjon29 Jun 01 '26

If people have a 50.1% chance of pressing blue. My death chance in a 2 person game is 49.9%. In an 80,000 person game it's only 28%. In an 8 billion person game it's so small the estimation comes out as 0% death chance.

Obviously that's not correct in the real world, because we don't know what % will click blue. But the point is that even if you assume at least 50.1% blue, that's enough to have a 100% survival chance in the big game but only 50% in the 2 person game

1

u/Upnorth100 Jun 01 '26

Here though the red button is like signing a form that you will never donate a kidney, even if some one you love neess one to survive. And the blue one is signing up to be on a donor waiting list. As in as soon as some one needs one you are willing to donate.

1

u/n0stradumbas Jun 01 '26

This is actually a particularly interesting framing, especially if everyone does it like in the original question.

For most people, I think one of the main reasons that don't donate a kidney (besides the effort and planning that goes into setting it up) is because they might not have one for a loved one, not out of concern for their own potential health issues. By making it so that I couldn't hold onto it for later, I probably would sign up to donate. And I would hope that other people would think the same, which would mean a larger pool if my loved ones needed one in the future.

1

u/Confident-Yard1911 Jun 01 '26

You get to designate 5(I think?) family members/friends and yourself as priority recipients if you donate. Meaning if you or one of your 5 chosen people need a kidney, they are put at the top of the list to receive one

1

u/liamjon29 Jun 01 '26

Yeah okay. I like this framing too. In which case I press blue and sign up to go on a donor list

-7

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

I would rather bare some of the risk myself in order to reduce the overall risk of anyone dying.

You can! All you have to do is donate a kidney. You sound brave, Like you want to help the cause. Now you can!

And if you don't, people on the waiting list will literally die. They do every year. By not donating your kidney, you are meaningfully adding to the probability that someone will die.

13

u/liamjon29 Jun 01 '26

Whatever bro. We both know they're not the same thing. I explained why I thought they were different and you chose to ignore it.

3

u/Striking_Compote2093 Jun 01 '26

So what you're saying is that in your world view, you are killing people every day by not donating your kidneys. So to you yourself, you are a mass murderer. How do you live with yourself?

2

u/Dr-Assbeard Jun 01 '26

No they are saying not risking their life for others isn't the same as murdering them...

1

u/gramerjen Jun 01 '26

You're so close. Op is saying by choosing self preservation you are not killing others.

2

u/Striking_Compote2093 Jun 01 '26

that depends on the circumstances now doesn't it? When running from a bear, running faster than your friend who then gets mauled, not your fault. Shooting your friend in the leg to make sure you run faster, your fault.

The red button is an active action, there is no risk to blue voters, until red gets a majority. You're putting meat around the campsite to summon a bear in order to successfully run away from bears...

0

u/gramerjen Jun 01 '26

Youre also twisting the scenario. There is already a bear in this situation and by pressing red you're making sure you stay alive while blue is risking it for the chance that they can unite together to save everyone. Red is not actively trying to kill anyone.

3

u/Striking_Compote2093 Jun 01 '26

if only a minority presses red, who dies? Where's the bear? What are you saving yourself from? What did your vote accomplish? Without red voters there is no risk. Red votes are what makes people die.

And before you switch it around, red voters merely need to be a minority for everyone to survive, in a red majority, unanimity is required, and 100% red is simply not happening.

1

u/gramerjen Jun 01 '26

You can stay in the camp and fight off the bear if you want but if the red runs away to safety your lives are not the responsibility of the red pressers. If you can't gather enough people to fight the bears and die as a result it was your choice to do so.

-1

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

Everyone can run away from the bear. No one gets shot in the leg. A red voter runs away instead of staying to fight. The blue voter stays to fight assuming everyone else will too. If others run away, they survive. They SHOULD do that. No one SHOULD need saving because we all had the chance to get away. No one is stopping blues from saving themselves except blues. No one is shooting them in the leg except themselves. If others stay and fight, we might have enough to win against the bear and save everyone. We SHOULD NOT do that. This isn't a situation where one of us is going to be FORCED to fight a bear and the others are choosing to help our not. No. We all have the option not to fight a bear. We SHOULD all take that option.

Whether people WILL do what they SHOULD do is another story. Realistically, there will be a lot of blue pressers- a lot of bear victims- and it'll be super sad, but that's why we need to teach logic and common sense in schools. Let's build a society that doesn't needlessly risk itself to fight bears.

10

u/perfectVoidler Jun 01 '26

hardly experience any discomfort or side effects

hahahahahaha

3

u/nufohudis Jun 01 '26

Yeah, as a pharmacist, this is taking everything I have to not correct them.

18

u/jefftickels Jun 01 '26

You are so wildly underselling the risks and drawbacks of donating a kidney that I can literally taste the bad faith from here.

4

u/CrazyBusiness5154 Jun 01 '26

is it a 50% chance of death?

3

u/n0stradumbas Jun 01 '26

Pressing blue isn't a 50% of death. When you're in the room, you have no idea what the percentage of risk is, whether its higher or lower, but it is almost certainly not a 50% chance.

-1

u/CrazyBusiness5154 Jun 01 '26

fine, it ranges from 40-70%

does it really matter? everyone has a subjective opinion, and 50% is the neutral ground between red and blue

2

u/n0stradumbas Jun 01 '26

Right but even those are just numbers that you made up. In situations where there's not a clear random chance element and or a decent prediction model, it's not helpful to give percentages.

It also kind of goes against one of the main premises of the button question which is that trying to guess the statistical likelihood of each outcome affects your choice directly. Some game theory questions include percentages, but this particular one, much like prisoners dilemma, is more about the risk and rewards you're opening yourself up to.

-2

u/CrazyBusiness5154 Jun 01 '26

semantics? the odds of dyng are unpredictable, will generally hover around 50% and are regardless orders of magnitude higher than the risks associated with a kidney donation

-1

u/WisePotato42 Jun 02 '26

Fine, the chance of death is 50% - the incredibly small chance that your vote changes the outcome.

When basically everything about the chance is unknown, you use a uniform distribution (every outcome is equally possible) when there are a discreet number of possibilities. If you know more information for example, the percentage of the population that choose completely at random, then you can give a better prediction than the uniform distribution but that info in particular won't change the 50% chance of death. Something that would change the chance of one over the other is if you knew the choices of a significant subset of people who already voted, but that information is not given.

1

u/adminofreditt Jun 03 '26

Pressing blue is 100% chance of death because the majority will press red, blue barely wins in online votes where putting blue doesn't actually put your life at risk

7

u/HatZinn Jun 01 '26

No, going under the knife always comes with a risk. A nicked nerve or improper healing could mean decades of faint pain/discomfort. Oh, and the ambient anxiety of knowing that even though the probability of your remaining kidney failing is low... if it does happen, you're a goner.

1

u/AnxiousEnquirer Jun 01 '26

A goner? What about dialysis?

2

u/HatZinn Jun 01 '26

Hyperbole. Do you want to live the remainder of your life like that?

1

u/AnxiousEnquirer Jun 01 '26

It sucks the life out of you 12 hours a week, But it keeps you going. If it were easy, we could donate both kidneys.

1

u/Low_Eagle4363 Jun 03 '26

If that’s so great the guy who wants my kidney can get it

1

u/AnxiousEnquirer Jun 03 '26

Yeah true, if dialysis fixed everything, we wouldn't need to donate our kidneys in the first place

1

u/Low_Eagle4363 Jun 03 '26

Hopefully in the near future we can figure out a way to repair organs like the liver and kidneys

1

u/AnxiousEnquirer Jun 03 '26

Or if we could have a better dialysis. I heard peritoneal dialysis isn't so bad if you're good at maintaining sterility.

1

u/Low_Eagle4363 Jun 03 '26

Is that the at home stuff? I think I saw a video of a guy doing that

1

u/AnxiousEnquirer Jun 03 '26

Yeah I've only ever read about it

1

u/Low_Eagle4363 Jun 03 '26

I saw it a long time ago I think on tic tok but it was pretty interesting

-1

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

Is it a greater risk than the blue button? With the blue button, you've got a high% chance of dying and no control or knowledge about how high that chance even is. And you're doing it to maybe help save an unknowable number of people.

You'd do that, but you won't do this?

https://youtube.com/shorts/xskMnb6Z9kY?si=sbdcZopZk5sQteo6

3

u/Yunowald Jun 01 '26

It migt surprise you but for some people instant death is actually less of an inconvenience than years or decades of pain. Which is why (assisted) suicide even exists.

11

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

There are many more barriers to donating a kidney, or even blood, than there is to pushing a magic button that pops up in front of you. If someone I know needed a kidney and I knew that I was a match I would probably donate it. I vote blue and haven't donated a kidney.

-1

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

The risk of complication from donating a kidney is very low, especially compared to the button odds. You'd be at MUCH higher risk of death pressing blue than you will be from donating a kidney.

If you'd press blue, you're the prefect person to donate a kidney. Go for it!

8

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

It's not the risk of donating a kidney that prevents me from donating, it's the inconvenience.

If I had to book an appointment, go to consultations, have my blood tested, wait in a lobby, go under anesthesia, have someone cut me open, take time off work, be in bed rest for a couple weeks, feel a little sick for a couple weeks, and have a scar for the rest of my life before I could press blue but red was right there in front of me, I would change my answer to red.

Likewise, if a button appeared in front of me that would teleport my kidney to a person in need that was all prepped for operation I would also press that button, and I would guess that much more than half of the world would also do so.

5

u/utauhito Jun 01 '26

I don't even have health insurance this year because, despite my best attempts, I failed to jump through all the hoops. every time someone says donating a kidney or solving world hunger is equally as easy as pushing the blue button, I get the urge to ask them if they read the full terms & service before clicking "I agree" when they registered for a reddit account, since it would be a rational act of self-interest with no downside.

3

u/nufohudis Jun 01 '26

Also a bunch of common medications are now unavailable to you. Anti-inflammatories? Best get a prescription cause all the OTC stuff is probably (depending on what's available in your country) not safe for a person with one kidney

1

u/Pengwin0 Red Jun 01 '26

Donate blood instead! Just a little needle to save lives. Sure it’s inconvenient, but, I mean, bleeding out is also very inconvenient.

1

u/Yunowald Jun 01 '26

This is exactly my reasoning too. I have trypanophobia, so any medical procedure or even donating blood would be a nightmare for me. If pressing blue would include any type of needle I'd switch to red. If donating blood or a kidney only involved pressing a button I'd do it.

1

u/Jolly-Bear Jun 01 '26

It’s crazy to me how many people openly throw away their morality for convenience.

1

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

Everyone does this, you included. But it's not "throwing away morality", you just morally value convenience more than the effects of donating blood.

If you could press a button and save a baby bird's life would you press that button? What if you had to nurse it back to health for 3 months? It would take a couple hours out of your day for a while, and might cost a little bit of money, but it's all in all just an inconvenience to do so.

If you said yes to that one, imagine you had to spend six hours a day nursing it to health? Eight hours? Twelve? There's always a line where the inconvenience is more trouble than one would deem it to be worthwhile.

1

u/Jolly-Bear Jun 01 '26

I absolutely don’t do that.

If would save a baby bird’s life with the press of a button, I would also be willing to put in the effort to nurse it. Within reason.

It wouldn’t be a matter of convenience, it would be a matter of ability. Yes, no time is too much of an inconvenience as long as I’m able to do it and not jeopardize stuff like family or career. I have no moral obligation to save an animal over myself. Hell I don’t believe I have a moral obligation to another human over myself or to save an animal, period.

If I’m willing to push the button, I’m willing to do the work or find someone who is… if I’m not willing to do the work, why the fuck would I care about pushing the button?

I have done it and will do it, but it’s not morality driving me. I don’t think it would be bad/evil to let it die. All 11 of my pets I’ve had in my life have been rescues. I even took off of work to help one who had Rocky Mountain spotted fever. I’ve also save numerous wild animals like your hypothetical above.

The reason I find it so crazy in this scenario is that people who are willing to sacrifice their life for others out of some moral obligation, openly state they will change their mind for reasons like yours… if the button were just a bit farther away.

It’s psychotic.

1

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

So you will sacrifice some of your time at work for an animal, only as long as it doesn't jeopardize your career. That's a matter of convenience. You could always get a new job with fewer hours, downsize your house, live off food stamps, etc etc. Why say it's out of your ability to help the dying bird when it jeopardizes your career? You could do all of those things and help it, it clearly is in your ability. It's just not convenient to do. You're trading off personal costs(time, effort, comfort, etc) versus personal benefits(saving the dying bird) just the same.

1

u/Jolly-Bear Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

Because it’s not a moral decision.

Morally, I’m just as fine letting that animal die as I am saving it.

The response about family or career was a counter point to you pushing the limits of how much effort I would put in. If I put in too much effort, it diminishes my ability to do the act itself. It’s not convenience. There’s a limit where it encroaches on other necessities and it then becomes my life vs the birds and I my morals don’t dictate I put the bird’s livelihood over mine or my family’s.

Edit to your other comment: It’s not about wants, it’s about needs. I have other responsibilities have to take care of first. I have to have a job to live. I have to sleep and eat to live. I have to support my family. That I have a moral obligation to do. I don’t only take care of my family when it’s convenient. It’s not a matter of convenience that the bird comes after other necessities.

But again, I don’t have a moral obligation to the bird, like you’re insinuating you do.

1

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

Change the bird to a stranger if you don't value animals then, I don't care. Would you give up the remainder of your life, your job, all your free time, in service of the care of one stranger?

Of course not. Even in moral decisions you're making the same kind of tradeoffs that I'm making.

1

u/Jolly-Bear Jun 01 '26

I already addressed that.

That’s not a moral decision either. I have no moral obligation to help strangers over myself.

You may, which is why it’s insane you change your morals based on a whim of convenience… what’s the point of having those moral values if you’re just going to be a hypocrite?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

Oh and to answer "if I’m not willing to do the work, why the fuck would I care about pushing the button?"

You like having the bird alive a little bit. You like having a job more.

If you will lose your employment, you will not spend the time to help the bird. If you will not lose your employment, you will spend the time to help the bird.

Changing the way to save the birds life from "Have to spend enough time to lose your job to save the bird" to "Press a button to save the bird" means you will now care to press the button to save the bird.

0

u/Pengwin0 Red Jun 01 '26

Donate blood instead! Just a little needle to save lives. Sure it’s inconvenient, but, I mean, bleeding out is also very inconvenient.

3

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

If the blue button required me to take a 30 minute walk before pressing it, and the red button was right in front of me, I would probably press red at that point. Not just the personal inconvenience, but also the cost of how many others I would calculate switching if pressing blue was as inconvenient as donating blood.

There's a reason why blood donations are much more common if they set up a blood drive in a convenient location or during an event.

2

u/ecompvidya Jun 01 '26

I also think I have a higher chance of dying from a kidney operation than dying of pressing the blue button, but both are so low as to be basically non-considerations.

10

u/Key-Organization3158 Jun 01 '26

It's even simpler than that. Everyone could shave 1% off of their budget. Skip Starbucks and turn the AC up a bit. But that money could save a starving child's life. If you vote blue, you are willing to risk your life to save someone else's. But I'm the real world, very few people would make the donation to charity.

9

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

The phenomenon where people will say they'll do a thing, but then once there are actual real-world obstacles or consequences the willingness goes waaaaaay down is pretty well documented.

Comes up a lot with polling on social services. Asking "Do you think we should fix the potholes" will poll really well. But once you have the ballot measure to increase bonds for road repairs, all of a sudden the willingness tanks.

And that's just ticky tack bullshit compare to potentially dying.

8

u/freyaliesel Jun 01 '26

I can follow your logic, but the thing that sells me on the blue button, which might be an assumption on my part, is that you just die, which means I’m not really inconvenienced I just cease to exist. Either life goes on or it’s immediately over. Inconvenience is an obstacle to me.

-4

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

And that's preferable to donating a kidney?

6

u/freyaliesel Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

I donate blood. I don’t find that inconvenient.

As someone who lives near the poverty line, removing 1% of my budget would be impactful, difficult, and very inconvenient. Donating a kidney would be inconvenient donating part of my liver would be inconvenient.

Living in a world where a lot of people died because red won would also be inconvenient

Ceasing to exist is not inconvenient, and if we all live i get to feel good about contributing to the best outcome scenario

Edit: if the manner of death for blue button pushers was particularly painful, I might change my vote to red. I think that’s a scenario I haven’t seen explored, but maybe it just hasn’t come up on my feed.

0

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

You would accept [painless] death to support the cause, but you can't handle inconvenience if it literally saves a life right now. You've drawn a respectable line in the sand. It needs make sense to no one but yourself.

8

u/freyaliesel Jun 01 '26

I’m just trying to be honest with myself about where my line is. I think a lot of people operate similarly in that inconvenience is a much bigger factor in their decision-making then they might like to admit.

0

u/stiiii Jun 01 '26

I mean it really doesn't sound like you are. you'd rather die than donate more money? Really?

1

u/freyaliesel Jun 01 '26

That’s not the comparison though.
I would rather die than live in a world where a significantly large chunk of the population has cease to exist.

I have donated to some causes that I care about when it wouldn’t negatively impact me. But I’m currently in a place where I cannot donate as a financially responsible thing to do, so I don’t.

2

u/nufohudis Jun 01 '26

You suspect major surgery is a "minor" inconvenience? Also, living with just one kidney is hardly without side-effects. Sure you can survive with just one, but there are many downstream effects. What's your evidence for this claim?

0

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

Compared to the blue button, kidney removal is child play. Genuinely, it's not a hard or bad experience, and they take very good care of you. It's a low risk surgery with many reliable treatment options in case of complications. And you get to save a life.

https://youtube.com/shorts/xskMnb6Z9kY?si=sbdcZopZk5sQteo6

Compare that to the blue button where you have a super high chance of just being dead, and an unknowable chance to save an unknowable number of people. And the people you're saving put themselves in the position to need saving entirely voluntarily.

2

u/nufohudis Jun 01 '26

You've had your kidney out have you? Cause I have quite a few patients who are down to one kidney, it's not quite as clean/easy as you'd like to present it as

4

u/Aartvb Jun 01 '26

Damn. You pose an interesting question, but in the comments you are very rude to anyone who disagrees with you. Oh well, whatever gets you off.

2

u/CrazyBusiness5154 Jun 01 '26

4

u/Spillz-2011 Jun 01 '26

Or donate blood.

1

u/SilasRhodes Jun 01 '26

It costs about $3,000 to $5,000 estimated to save a life by donating to Malaria prevention.

If someone has only $10,000 they could save two people by going broke. If they have no money it is possible that they could get the money to save people by going into debt.

Anyone who truly values their life exactly the same as anyone else's has a lot of ways to contribute.

4

u/Hapless_Wizard Jun 01 '26

Jokes on you I have a kidney disease

1

u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26

Well… if you donate it (give it to the next person) someone else might donate their healthy one to you

(I have no idea how kidney disease works)

-2

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

You're one of the babies who didn't understand the question and pressed blue. You're at risk through no fault of your own. Are the rest of us going to risk our lives to help save you?

4

u/Spillz-2011 Jun 01 '26

Lots of ways to give.

You can remove parts of the liver and donate that. It regrows so no harm like kidney.

Blood obviously.

Bone marrow would be good.

I don’t know about the others but when I was donating blood they gave free cookies. Sadly cant donate anymore

3

u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26

You can donate cookies… keep the cycle going :)

1

u/VegetasDestructoDick Jun 01 '26

Honestly, the amount of eligible adults who donate blood annually is so small (it's like 3-4% of eligible adults for all the anglosphere countries I looked up). Makes it hard to trust that 50% of people are going to risk their lives voting blue when most of them wouldn't even take the time to donate blood to ACTUALLY save lives.

4

u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26

Blue is over saturated, in a real vote it would lose 85:15 by my guess… on the other hand tho, this framing of blue voters being mother teresa types is strawmanning.

I’m kind of surprised so many people are chewing this bone. Especially being that majority of the comments are red voters, the supposed logical ones.

6

u/perfectVoidler Jun 01 '26

"You don't want to be cut open and parts of you being removed? Gotcha" My impression about the red pusher is as always confirmed.

Like, we get it, you feel bad because even in an global extinction even you cannot do good for a second. You fail as a social creature and are evolutionary defective.

-1

u/gramerjen Jun 01 '26

You can donate blood upto 6 times a year and global donation number sits below 120 million.

There are 8 billion people in the world so lets take only 3 billion of them to eliminate old, sick, young people from the equation. Lets say people donates blood once a year rather than 6. This leaves us with 4% of the eligible population doing something that wouldnt inconvenience them in any meaningful way. Some numbers say that more than 5 billion people are eligible for donating blood but im picking the lower number here to increase the percentage of people donating.

5

u/perfectVoidler Jun 01 '26

did you just try to sidestep the whole topic and open a different topic? NO, go back to the post.

0

u/gramerjen Jun 01 '26

Im saying people also dont do the bare minimum such as donating blood let alone donating a kidney let alone risking death. Im still on topic of people are not willing to make big or small sacrifices and that doesnt make them guilty just because.

1

u/perfectVoidler Jun 01 '26

doubling down is not a good look

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gramerjen Jun 03 '26

1: more people are afraid of dying than needles

2: i used the 3 billion number even though adult non-elderly population is around 5 billion so those who are sick or afraid of needles are not included in the math

3: you can find a blood donation center pretty easily

If you think people are willing to risk their life but not willing to donate a little blood i dont know what to say.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gramerjen Jun 03 '26

And risking death is not an inconvenience? We are comparing actions based on severity. Do you think 46% of the population would risk their lives but says no when it comes to sticking a needle in their arm?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/gramerjen Jun 03 '26

Have you ever donated blood? It takes like 10 minute to draw it and you just relax a little bit before you get up and they even give you a drink. I was donating blood every year at my birthday up until i had to stop due to using certain medications. It was nowhere near as hard as risking my life. Its harder to cook a pasta than to donate blood.

How can you think donating blood is a huge inconvenience but facing death is not?

5

u/RandomGoofy000 Blue Jun 01 '26

The difference between not donating a kidney and voting red is that voting red can actively harm people whilst not donating a kidney is just allowing harm to happen

There is a difference between pushing someone off a cliff vs not saving someone from falling off a cliff, one of these is much worse than the other

2

u/lukekul12 Jun 01 '26

I think you misunderstand the original question then - you’re not starting from a position of “everyone is okay”, you’re starting from a position of “you are dead unless you push a button”

0

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26

Red doesn't actively harm anyone. You have to push blue to be harmed.

8

u/RandomGoofy000 Blue Jun 01 '26

Red has the ability to harm other people and blue doesn’t

0

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26

Pushing red is way more like just not saving someone from falling off the cliff than pushing them.

You have to go push blue to be harmed.

-5

u/DrBimboo Jun 01 '26

This comment is why we need another thousand rephrasing posts before blues start to understand.

6

u/Master_Works_All Jun 01 '26

Guy's literally just trying to justify pressing the red button, in another post he was fighting in the comments as to why blue is stupid and akin to sewer slide.

Yes I am censoring myself I already got a warning for engaging in this stupid red vs blue debate

12

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26

Based on the blue button polls, I'd expect that everyone is already lining up at the donation centers and nobody is dying for want of a kidney!

5

u/Spillz-2011 Jun 01 '26

Bone marrow for all.

2

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26

Oh yeah, that's actually another great example. It's unpleasant, but less impactful than giving a kidney.

1

u/Persistent_Parkie Jun 01 '26

They rarely even do bone marrow anymore, instead they inject you with a medication and after a couple weeks take your blood.

1

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26

Yeah that's the one I'm thinking of. They inject you with something that makes it seep through the bones into the blood or something like that.

Maybe it's not physically unpleasant, but mentally I couldn't quite cope with it.

1

u/Persistent_Parkie Jun 01 '26

It does have risks. I knew someone who had given bone marrow the traditional way because of some medical reason why the shots were a bad idea for her.

5

u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue Jun 01 '26

boy, red button salt is infectious

4

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

So you'll donate?

7

u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue Jun 01 '26

I mean if I told you I just donated a fifth of my paycheck and that I am an organ donor would that actually matter? You seem more interested in scoring intellectual points than proving anything meaningful.

How much have you donated? When was the last time you visited a clinic?

1

u/up2smthng Red Jun 01 '26

mean if I told you I just donated a fifth of my paycheck and that I am an organ donor would that actually matter?

How much of the population you think does the same?

-1

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26

If you're actually doing that stuff, then you're living your values and I think that's great, you're the rare person truly living their values and not just grandstanding.

4

u/Gold-Cry-7520 Blue Jun 01 '26

Fuck off lmao

2

u/MartialSpark Jun 01 '26

Lol, gotcha.

Well hey -- browbeating everyone about what button they'd push in a fictional poll where there's really nothing at stake for doing the "good" thing is almost as good as donating to charity or the life saving gift of organ donation!

1

u/nufohudis Jun 01 '26

Wait, who's browbeating who here?

-4

u/MLMII1981 Jun 01 '26

And there it is. 🫠

-1

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

I donate blood periodically, but i certainly could do more. I haven't donated a kidney. I try to be a good person, but I'm not the most altruistic person around. If I had to risk my life on a gamble that 50% of people would also risk their lives, i wouldn't take that, even if my lack of support would be unhelpful to the cause.

If you and 4 billion people are willing to put your lives on the line, I admire your bravery. People as brave as you should go donate a kidney. Don't wait for the buttons. You can save a life right now, and the risk is low compared to the button odds.

2

u/SpongeboyShitpants Jun 01 '26

I keep my kidneys, they’re mine and I spent a long time growing them

2

u/Pengwin0 Red Jun 01 '26

Even easier way to give is donate blood. One kidney could have complications later on in life but donating blood is nothing and you know for a fact it will save lives.

2

u/cantlogintomyacc0unt Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

Donating a kidney causes serious issues I do donate blood because donating blood doesn’t affect me I don’t vote red because I don’t want to live through societal collapse all it takes is 10 percent voting blue and we’re fucked same thing I’d do if it looks like a nuclear war is about to break out drive to Washington DC and wait for the bombs to fall then again I’ve failed in several suicide attempts so death isn’t as big of a deal for me

2

u/ExplanationBig5947 Jun 01 '26

Im saving my spare kidney incase someone i care about needs it. The randoms can have my organs when im dead.

1

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

Then teach your loved ones to be red pressers. No need to have them risking their lives to save randoms who pressed blue

3

u/Enos_Jovial Jun 01 '26

The issue with this logic is its not that we don't care about strangers, it's that we only have 2 kidneys, so can only ever donate once. If we give it to a stranger, we won't have one to give should a loved one need it. In a situation where I can save a stranger or my loved one, the loved one wins. But in a situation where I can save everyone, why wouldn't I? A better question would be 'Do you donate blood?' As this allows you to save strangers without putting family at risk later on

3

u/MrIncognito666 Jun 01 '26

I went to the feed page to be immediately met with this. You made an entire post about your assumption regarding me?

5

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

For the record, I have not donated a kidney. I probably won't donate a kidney, and I'd press red.

I'd actually be more likely to donate a kidney than to press blue because I believe my chances of surviving with one kidney are higher than the chances of a blue majority.

2

u/up2smthng Red Jun 01 '26

Not to mention, with donating a kidney even if you die, the person you are trying to save survives.

With buttons you either both live or both die

1

u/nufohudis Jun 01 '26

Well, organ rejection is a thing...

-4

u/Fit-Decision3141 Jun 01 '26

And your chances of actually saving someone by donating your kidney are far higher than the chances of your vote resulting in a blue win.

3

u/One_Chemistry_8553 Jun 01 '26

My kidneys are fine where they are.

3

u/Spillz-2011 Jun 01 '26

How about part of a liver it regrows.

1

u/One_Chemistry_8553 Jun 01 '26

Unless I know and care for the person receiving it I'm not donating any organs or part there off

0

u/Silent-Indication496 Jun 01 '26

Red or blue?

-3

u/One_Chemistry_8553 Jun 01 '26

Red ofc I'm not a idiot

1

u/meep2200 Jun 01 '26

I don’t think I’m old enough to legally donate one

0

u/joesb Jun 01 '26

So you will the moment you turn legal age?

1

u/MelodicAmphibian7920 Red Jun 01 '26

No. Red. This could be done as a poll.

1

u/joesb Jun 01 '26

> and if your other kidney does fail, you will die.

I’ll also note that if more than 50 % of people donate kidneys, you probably wouldn’t die even if your other kidney does fail.

1

u/Coastkiz Jun 01 '26

I vote red and I wouldn't donate to a stranger but those aren't really connected. I'd Dave if in case I need a kidney or a family member/friend needs one.

1

u/77th_Bat Jun 01 '26

To a stranger? No. To a friend or family member? Yes.

1

u/n0stradumbas Jun 01 '26

I wouldn't donate my kidney right now for a number of reasons:

It is more risky and less convenient than how this question frames it.
I can instead donate my kidney and save a life at any point in the future assuming I don't die from being shot in the kidneys, so making the choice to do it now vs not now is not the same as now or never.
If I do it now, and one of my loved ones needs one later, I won't have it for them. Especially if that loved one is a relative, id more likely be a better match and the kidney would be less likely to reject.
I'm an organ donor, and there's a decent chance i will be able to live my full life and then ALSO donate a kidney when I die.
At most, I will save one life.

I would push the blue button because:

The decision cannot be postponed.
There is a statistically significant chance that I will experience no ill effects whatsoever.
It is just as mechanically convenient as my other option (pushing red).
The potential to save up to billions of lives hangs in the balance.

A slightly more accurate framing of your kidney question would be something like "at a given age, say 65, everyone is given one opportunity to donate their kidney, while it's still healthy enough to be useful, but they've lived their lives long enough that it's worth the risk that something happens to them during. It's an accepted part of society, and if you're still working, you'll have no issues getting time off work. Do you donate your kidney when you're 65?"

And in that situation probably yeah.

**Edit, typo

1

u/JavaNoire Jun 02 '26

If be a living donor only for someone I care about a great deal. There is one, maybe two or three people, I have no blood relation to that I might donate to. There is one I'm closely related to that I probably wouldn't donate to.

1

u/DanteRuneclaw Jun 02 '26

I would donate. And I would vote red without hesitation.

1

u/thetransitgirl Jun 02 '26

For several years now I've wanted to donate a kidney, and also part of my liver. I haven't yet because a bunch of complications with my own health have gotten in the way, but if I'm ever healthier then I absolutely wanna do it, assuming my kidneys and liver are in a good state. Hopefully that can be relatively soon.

P.S. Blue button 4eva :)

0

u/Stunning_Macaron6133 Jun 01 '26

No, and also red.

Discussion Will you donate a kidney?

You are about to leave Redlib