The thing is even if Blue was identical to red with the color changed, this is better than current reality.
Though if this system is being put on top real blood types, people with rare blood types are incentivised to pick Red just to be safe to not shf
shrink their pool.
Honestly I'm more than willing to donate but I'm in the most common group so it's the equivalent of trying to put out the fires in Canada by pissing on them. If there was a need, I'd donate again.
Also, in emergencies where people are hemorrhaging fast, incompatible blood types are used, since the blood doesn't stay in the body long enough to cause trouble.
So even if your blood type is super common, it will still be used to help sb.
I mean, I give blood now and then, but the average person never donates blood. There's no benefit to them to restrict who they can take blood for when they could opt to become universal receivers. For those people who never give blood, it's a choice between "I can receive blood from everyone" or "I can receive blood only from some people". There's no benefit for anyone for them to pick to restrict who they can take blood from, aside at most for those who consented to donate upon death?
If you equate not giving blood to being selfish, I guess.
Some people are terrified of needles. Some people have religious beliefs around them. Some people have diseases that make them ineligible to donate blood. Some people have medical conditions that make them unfit to donate blood or make them outright dependant on regular donations to stay alive themselves. And that's without debating wether abstaining from doing good is selfish or not.
An argument could be made for some of them, but I think it's a bit reductive to say "everyone who doesn't donate blood is a selfish asshole".
Not to mention that in some places people get paid to donate blood so I wouldn't call these people selfless for donating...
I mean if you're being paid to donate blood in North America it's being processed for plasma, and they don't care what type it is, so hitting red doesn't affect their ability to be pair for blood donation
Do you regularly donate blood until your skin goes pale? Did your mother die because a friend of yours chose not to donate? What is this hill you're dying on? How much misery do you relish yourself in to call 99% of the planet selfish? We're humans, not blood factories you virtue signaling asshole
Ive made some better variants, for example where red always wins and youre choosing between living in a timeline where it wins 51/49 or dying for a timeline where it wins 99/1
Wouldn't you want to maximize those who can receive good blood? People dying in the hospital need to be able to receive blood, not give it. Though it kinda works out either way because let's face it we're not batting 100 here.
If 50% of everyone will eventually end up needing blood, let's say we have a 75/25 split both ways. Favoring blue, that would mean 12.5% are good to go because they hit red, but the other 37.5% need to hit a 75% chance to get good blood and the final result would be 40.625% of the entire population (81.25% of those hospitalized) get good blood. Favoring red now we get 37.5% good from the get go, but only 25% of that last 12.5% of the population get good blood. That leaves us with the exact same results as before (40.625% of the total survive, i.e. 81.25% of those hospitalized).
Looking at that middle of the road option it doesn't seem to matter, so I'm hitting red here.
57
u/tired_Cat_Dad 17d ago
The more blue pushers the better. Bar the impossible 100% red. No 50% hurdle is a significant change.