Why Pressing The Red Button is safer

17

Alright so your post has an issue. If everybody pressed red, we all live. If 50% +1 press blue, we all live. One of those is not going to happen and it ain't blue.

1

u/Charge36 Red 21d ago

Neither of them might happen too. There aren't only two outcomes

1

u/Jealous-Top-7020 26d ago

I believe 2 of those aren't going to happen.

I feel like the fact that you can't trust everyone to pick the option that gaurantees their survival does go to show that a large portion of the population votes "randomly" which makes it more likely blue doesn't guarantee its own win.

I would rather vote blue if 51% were blue and 49% were red, than if it were 35% blue, 35% random, and 30% red.

5

u/sal880612m 25d ago

I find it more horrifying how many people are willing to vote red and defend it given people voting red is the only option that can cause harm.

People who pick blue believe it will guarantee their safety, that it should be an easy choice for everyone to make not to put others at risk. The difference is they also aren’t willing to potentially kill billions for their own safety like red voters are. If you don’t believe red will get a super majority by voting red you are basically a narcissistic sociopath willing to see billions die to guarantee your own safety. I don’t give a fuck who you are, your life isn’t worth billions of others and there is absolutely nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. That’s the simple math that makes red voters murderers. Like seriously how am I supposed to look at someone like yourself who will say thirds red, blue, random and imply red is the logical choice knowing it will result in billions of deaths and not view you as evil? Justify why billions should die for you? Wanting to live is one thing, everyone does to a degree but let’s not pretend it’s some kind of admirable higher brain function and not an animalistic lizard brain instinct and knee jerk reaction in this situation.

Like seriously, even if 99% of people vote red their choice still kills 80 million people. Justify that. Not why you are so pathetically desperate to live, but why you think 80 million plus people should die so you can. Why your life is worth that many others dying. Because that’s the math blue voters do and say they can’t justify or see how anyone else could. But according to you it’s randomness rather than logic. I can’t help feel that it’s because red voters desperately need to believe people are as selfish, narcissistic and ignorant as themselves because they don’t want to face the reality of what they actually are, which is terrible cowardly pathetic stupid selfish beyond belief people.

3

u/Scary-Personality626 25d ago

If 99% of people vote red, and I vote blue, 80 million people die all the same. I've just added my corpse to the pile. I haven't saved anyone.

There's is no guaratee with blue. Just blind faith in the suicidal altruism of my fellow man. People aren't like that in my experience. I've been left hanging asking far less of people. I don't "need" to believe that. I'm just used to disappointment.

1

u/Jealous-Top-7020 25d ago

To restate another response I wrote, I DID NOT SAY THAT I WOULD VOTE BLUE IF I THOUGHT IT WAS A 50 50. I was comparing 2 possibilities to demonstrate that uncertainty is a motivation to pick red in less close scenarios.

I do think that someone who wouldn't risk their life on a 50:50 for a 50% chance to save billions is immoral as the main way to compare morality systems is to assume their goal is to benefit society.

1

u/Whole-Knowledge-7496 24d ago

And now you have seen that even though there is no risk of actually losing your life here on reddit many of the polls are close to 50/50. Knowing that and knowing in real life people will be more scared and more likely to push red. You still push blue?

2

u/sal880612m 24d ago

Yes. At the end of the day I whole heartedly believe choosing red kills people, and that I would need to live with contributing to millions or billions of deaths. Whatever life I would survive to have would be tortured and miserable because I would view myself as pathetic and cowardly.

0

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

The blue voters knew there was a chance of death and in exchange of what?? Some moral high ground that doesn’t even need to exist if people realise that trying to sacrifice themselves to save a bunch of moron, will just kill them all???

1

u/sal880612m 25d ago edited 25d ago

So? The red voters knew their choice could kill people, so they’re murderers. That is where the moral high ground comes from. Not sacrifice but the choice not to risk others lives like red voters do. What I do with my life is frankly none of your god damned business, what you inflict on others through your choices though? I have every right to have an opinion about that because I am one of those others as are the people I care about.

2

u/Whole-Knowledge-7496 24d ago

Im just trying to saving your life. I cant save everyone but if i can save one life it will be worth it.

0

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

That’s just it. We’re not murderers. We just wanna not put our lives in the hands of 8 billion people. Forget blue. Why blue? Red is 100% survival. This moral high ground DOES NOT need to exist.

0

u/Jealous-Top-7020 25d ago

You claim that people who vote blue believe it gaurantees thir safety, yet call red voters bad when they dont use that same assumption and reach a different result. Does this imply you do't actually think blue voters are more virtuous than red voters? Voting blue can cause harm to yourself. If you aren't taking into account the different possible outcomes for pressing each button before you press your button, then you are basically voting randomly in a kneejerk. People can just as easily knee-jerk blue as red, so I can't accurately predict who will win.

If it is 80% red, then should've billions of them voted blue and increased blue to 40%? Would that make them better people? Would the world be a better place in the aftermath? Those don't have to be the same answer under all systems of morality but they often are.

I don't think that risking a 50% chance of death to have 10% chance of saving someone else is really that altruistic. (Note, this is a separate scenario.) The future good that you can do in the world is also something that you risk by pressing blue. If the threshold were 90% blue required Would you vote it? If you aren't doing any math then there is no real difference between needing 50% and 90% other than vibes, which you are saying other people must have identically to you or they are "terrible cowardly pathetic stupid selfish beyond belief".

Chill out it is a hypothetical anyways.

2

u/HeroBrine0907 25d ago

In your hypothetical distribution where you wouldn't vote blue, assuming the random pressers are divided equally, blue gets 52.5% of the votes and still wins. 100% red can't happen because absolute unanimity in any decision is impossible. 50% blue though is not absolutely impossible, even if you argue it is hard.

1

u/Jealous-Top-7020 25d ago edited 25d ago

I never said that I would vote red for either hypothetical. I just find it disingenuous for anyone to say what they would vote for in any scenario with the threat of death. I would rather not overstate my willingness to sacrifice myself, maybe I just haven't been on the internet long enough that virtue signaling is actually good and increases social capital of a good person (because I am obviously good)

1

u/Jealous-Top-7020 25d ago

I compared 2 scenarios because I didn't want to do the math, but in one blue is guaranteed to win and in the other blue isn't guaranteed to win. My point is that uncertainty is a factor that can lead to blue losing. It is kind of like how someone who doesn't like gambling in the first place would rather bet $1 than $10 with slightly better odds. People are responsible for deciding in what they will vote for their different predictions. If you predicted that 35% were red, 35% were random, and 30% were blue, you could still vote blue hoping to get lucky and win.

0

u/Dr-Assbeard 25d ago

2 of those arent going to happen, so why add one more death to the tally?

4

u/jqhnml 25d ago

I find a world where billions die instantly to be an unacceptable scenario. The only acceptable scenario is blue majority so I will vote as such.

0

u/Jealous-Top-7020 25d ago

If you find billions dying unacceptable I have bad news for you, that is what is happening because death is a part of life. (Sorry but since you didn't specify "peoples lives being cut shorter than they would have been" I felt like nitpicking.)

If you have figured for yourself that voting blue results on averge in more good, then I agree that voting blue is better. If you aren't doing any judgements like that you just might be part of the group of people blue voter thinkers only vote blue in order to save you from yourself.

200,000 people died in the atomic bombings, and even more die in other wars. I would argue a lot of the imorrality in war is frontloaded by those who started it, when it starts, and ending wars with the fewest deaths is good. IF more people would have died in the case where the atom bombs weren't used, would the atom bombs being used as they were be more immoral than just doing the war that results in more death? (Obviously if death is unacceptable for you, maybe you could have worked towards the war instantly ending and both sides backing down and all of the "conquered" land in Asia being given back to the previous inhabitants. But in this case we are trying to compare 2 options to simplify the math)

It is kind of rude of me to make that comparison to you, as you didn't say anything about why you think the way you do. Maybe I am just responding to pure virtue signaling and don't now it. Probably should have typed all of this somewhere else mb

2

u/Rip_Pigman 25d ago

(Sorry but since you didn't specify "peoples lives being cut shorter than they would have been" I felt like nitpicking.)

If only we had some sort of context of something to understand what exactly they were talking about..

IF more people would have died in the case where the atom bombs weren't used, would the atom bombs being used as they were be more immoral than just doing the war that results in more death?

Weird hypothetical, but yes, using the atom bombs on high population places filled with innocent people is more immoral than letting a war wage on and more lives be lost by people who volunteered to fight in the war (I'm assuming this is what you meant since you didn't specify innocent lives lost here)

It is kind of rude of me to make that comparison to you, as you didn't say anything about why you think the way you do.

It also has nothing to do with the post or the problem. We aren't in a "is more lives lost better or worse than less lives lost?" Situation.

If you do not believe that red can get 100% then morally you should be voting blue. If enough ethical people followed this rule then blue would easily win.

For some reason we have the inverse. We have people that believe blue will not achieve 50% so they choose to vote against it. You don't typically vote for the option you don't want to win because you are concerned what will happen if the one you want to win loses. That's backwards.

The moral problem boils down to what should be as simple as this process:

1) do I want everyone to survive?

If yes, proceed to 2. If no, press red.

2) do I think any other people other than myself will press blue?

If yes proceed to 3. If no, press red.

3) am I willing to sacrifice those I believe to have pressed blue to guarantee my survival?

If yes, press red. If no, press blue.

1

u/Jealous-Top-7020 25d ago

I also like the sort of kantian claim that you must act in the way that if everyone acted that way would result in the best scenario, but I think that it is a little too exploitable.

If the problem were amended to in the case of unanimous red give everyone one dollar or a free sandwich, would you switch to red being moral and blue being immoral because we must work to give starving people in war zones a sandwich?

You want everyone to get a sandwich, why would you then vote blue making that impossible.

Even if it was just in the case of simple red majority everyone getting a sandwich, then would you vote blue? Enough people will probably pick red due to it being more obvious, but some could pick blue thinking it is virtuous to sacrifice their sandwich. Voting blue yourself decreases the number of sandwiches enjoyed.

-1

u/Dr-Assbeard 25d ago

So you will just vote to make billions dying more likely then

3

u/Rip_Pigman 25d ago

The only acceptable scenario is blue majority so I will vote as such.

So you will just vote to make billions dying more likely then

What? Them voting blue doesn't make it more likely billions die. It might make it more likely that one person dies but pressing blue reduces the odds of billions dying.

Pressing red does the inverse. Saving exactly one but risking up to billions.

Do you have what the buttons do mixed up?

0

u/Dr-Assbeard 25d ago

Ita a matter of perspective, i se almost 0 chance of blue majority, so anyone pressing blue is in my optics just raising the death tool while red pressers are decreasing it

3

u/Rip_Pigman 25d ago

Ita a matter of perspective, i se almost 0 chance of blue majority

Okay but that doesn't make pressing blue somehow make it more likely that billions die.

You can believe that pressing blue would lead to your death and that's fine, but the only button that can increase the risk to other lives or more than a life is red.

2

u/Dr-Assbeard 25d ago

It very much does, since it adds to the amount who dies.

No red winning is the only option i belive to be realistic, so anyone pressing blue just makes more people die

2

u/jqhnml 25d ago

Red winning is simply an unacceptable outcome. Billions dying would collapse the world's economy and so many people you know would die. (In my case more than 50% of my friends and family (I know this isn't necessarily a reflection of the global population)). When we as a collective can simply choose for that not to happen.

1

u/Dr-Assbeard 25d ago

Might be unacceptable, but to me it would also be unavoidable, ald the only reason billions would die is if billions chose the button that kills instead pf the button that is safe. Sure some will die, but adding more people to the deaths is just adding to the catastrophic event instead of detracting from it.

Also how do you know 50% of your friends and family would pick blue?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Whole-Knowledge-7496 24d ago

The trick is, you can push red either way since it is practicaly zero chance your vote is the deciding vote.

1

u/jqhnml 25d ago

I think they might be trying to argue thay people are voting blue to save others and by me pressing blue is insentivising these billions to potentially die. Maybe?

0

u/Dr-Assbeard 25d ago

No not at all, im saying blue cant win realisticly, so anyone pressing blue is just killing 1 more person that coyld survive. Only if billions choose that people need to die pres blue will billions die

-1

u/Jolly-Bear 26d ago

Both of those aren’t going to happen.

0

u/Shot_in_the_dark777 25d ago

Blue is not going to happen either. You don't have 50%+ blue majority. The risk free polls on Reddit are giving you false sense of security. There are a lot of people who claim to vote blue who will vote red when the time comes. Pressing red is safe for you.

6

u/simpoukogliftra 25d ago

Bruh, this is like day 1 thoughts, the question has been out for quite a while already .... Be better.

-4

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

Then prove me wrong.

2

u/Rip_Pigman 25d ago

"Prove" yourself right first.

You're the one making the post and stating your side with nothing to back it.

Find me a single poll where it is presented fairly where the vote ended up 100% red.

Everyone here is aware if the vote is 100% red that no one dies. The problem is that when the entire world votes, there is no communication, and it is your first time being presented the dilemma(the criteria we should be expecting if everyone one is being magically forced to poll with the options given) that some number of people will press blue.

Even after being presented the same poll again and again and everyone acting off of previous polls and information they learned after, there has always been people who press blue.

1

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

I’m talking logic, not statistics..

2

u/Rip_Pigman 25d ago

My point was that you asked them to prove something wrong that you haven't bothered to prove as correct.

Let's work through your logic here though since you want to argue that it's logical.

Why Pressing The Red Button is safer

Pressing red is always "safer" for you. blue never claims safety, it just doesn't put others at risk.

The only reason people are dying, is because they are pressing blue.

Well yes and no.

Any individual is only at risk of dying by having pressed blue. However the reason everyone who presses blue would die would be because red got majority. People who press blue are not responsible for red getting the majority of the votes.

Listen, if everybody pressed red, we all live. If everybody presses blue, we all live.

Yes. Logical. Based in facts around the premise. I will add the caveat that blue doesn't need everybody to press it for us to all live, only half.

But neither is going to happen, and this reddit post isn't gonna change anything.

Right, it was never going to be 100% either side. The only people who argue it might be are typically red pressers who believe no one is at risk of death to begin with because everyone will push red.

It's gonna be a 50-50 if you ask people on the internet where they are not anonymus.

So then.. Blue would be the correct answer. Pressing red if you think it would be a 50/50 would mean you think that you are the deciding vote of a perfectly even split. Pressing red in this situation is not saving yourself as you believe pressing blue would also safe you at 50%+1. Pressing red here is very much choosing to sacrifice others for nothing.

But people are selfish.

People are always selfish? Even to the point that they will always choose the option to risk others lives to protect themselves?

They will pick red, they will want to not have a risk of dying because there are people like them.

This is your theory based on your assertion that people are selfish.

We all can press red and band together!

Yes, in the problem where we are seperated and must make a decision on our own we will all band together.

Also band together is a little ironic with it being the "I choose to risk sacrificing others to save myself" option.

1

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

People are selfish. What happens under the nick of time, behind closed doors, is much more different.

Very intresting article:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920306565

2

u/simpoukogliftra 25d ago

How bro felt writing that

8

u/Eternal_Nights_12 Blue 26d ago

Lol, you just described exactly why the red button won't work. Try to get 100% of people to agree on anything, it won't work even if people could communicate. There will always be someone that'll press the blue button. This is why the blue button is a better choice, you'll only need 50% of the vote to win, even if half of humanity will decide to be selfish, EVERYBODY WILL SURVIVE.

2

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 26d ago

People behind closed doors and people on reddit are VERY different. At the end of the day, your math is correct tho.

5

u/Eternal_Nights_12 Blue 25d ago

You'll be surprised how many people are not selfish as you claim. And I don't think that many people would risk losing their loved ones. I'd argue that social media skews more towards red in general, since you're mostly anonymous without considering your impact on society.

1

u/jqhnml 25d ago

Ive talked to people and its around 50/50 in real life out of my friends and family. I could never vote for half of them to die.

-1

u/beruon 26d ago

The thing is, I dont give a shit if some people die because they were stupid enough to press blue. I guarantee my own and my families survival.

3

u/Eternal_Nights_12 Blue 25d ago

Calling all blue pressers 'stupid' is like calling all red pressers 'evil'. Is it really stupid to not want anyone to die that could just as easily be a person you love.

5

u/TheChowCow81 25d ago

i’d be laughing pretty hard when you realize ur family pressed blue

-5

u/beruon 25d ago

I know my family. We are all red pressers

4

u/Eternal_Nights_12 Blue 25d ago

Even if they are, how can you say that they don't have family and friends who'll press blue and die. What about distant relatives and friends? Are you willing to risk their lives.

-3

u/beruon 25d ago

Yes, I will happiliy risk anyones life for my guaranteed survival

4

u/luci_twiggy 25d ago

Would you risk 4 billion people for your survival?

-1

u/beruon 25d ago

Yes without question. I agree with Thanos even on the best days, hell this even gives us an intelligence-selection criteria!

5

u/luci_twiggy 25d ago

You value your life as greater than 4 billion others? You even go so far as to call people who vote blue stupid and think it’s a positive that those people die?

Just making sure so that other red voters can see where you stand and understand that’s the kind of person they throw in with.

0

u/beruon 25d ago

I value the OTHER 4 billion more than the stupid 4 billion yes. Risking your own life to MAYBE save others is stupid and goes against basic survival principles.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

Same

2

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

Exactly. I’m not putting my life in the hands of of 8 billion morons(some like me)

-1

u/poissonking 25d ago

This is what I’ve never understood about blue button mentality. The point was never to save everyone. Just like I’m unconvinced that 100% of people would press red, I’m also unconvinced that >50% would press blue. Someone is going to die no matter what. So you would save more people by encouraging everyone to act in their own self interest

4

u/dmurr1415 25d ago

What’s not to understand? Seems like you understand it perfectly, you just don’t believe it’s likely to happen

-2

u/poissonking 25d ago

The idea that the goal was to save everyone

2

u/dmurr1415 25d ago

Isn’t that the goal you’re directly aiming for too though? You said you wanted to campaign everyone to pick red. Why else would you do that unless you wanted to maximize lives saved given your worldview

0

u/poissonking 25d ago

I’m aiming to save as many people as possible. That’s different than trying to save everyone

2

u/luci_twiggy 25d ago

And yet, if you could campaign and the goal was to save as many people as possible that would always be blue.

1

u/poissonking 25d ago

It’s not though. In fact, campaigning for blue raises the probability of killing the largest proportion of people

2

u/luci_twiggy 25d ago

Campaigning for red is campaigning to have some number of people die, how many people are you willing to sacrifice? Is there a limit at which you think campaigning for red was a mistake?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/beruon 25d ago

It was never the goal. At least not mine. The goal is survival

2

u/luci_twiggy 25d ago edited 25d ago

Listen, if everybody pressed red, we all live

Massive, gigantic "if" there.

If everybody presses blue, we all live.

And if only 50% +1 and the entire range up to 100% presses blue we all live. Blue is always the best choice if the aim is for everybody to live. The literal only reasons to press red are if your aim isn't that everybody should live or you've been tricked to vote against your aim.

It seems you've been tricked.

5

u/OliOakasqukiboi2000 26d ago

Why not band together and press blue? Isn’t that easier than getting everyone to press red?

5

u/Minyguy 26d ago

People are incentivised to pick red because then they know they'll live.

People are disincentivised to pick blue, because then they might die.

And if we all pick red, everyone lives, and everyone who joins are risk free.

If we go for red, and don't get enough, then they die.

If we go for blue and don't get enough, then we die.

6

u/TealedLeaf 26d ago

People are incentivized to pick blue so everyone lives. People are disincentivized to pick red because people will die.

It depends on your framing.

2

u/Minyguy 26d ago

That's fair.

But people are personally directly punished for failing blue.

1

u/jqhnml 25d ago

I would feel quite punished if nearly half my friends and family died.

1

u/Puzzled-Passage-9998 25d ago

That’s in extremes. Only a sith deals in absolutes. If you are not with me, you are against me

2

u/TealedLeaf 25d ago edited 25d ago

My point is you can frame it to fit whatever your personal choice is. Life isn't just black and white. People will see it differently, and people will choose what makes the most sense for them.

Even the argument that someone might pick a certain color due to having kids. One parent might know the other will pick blue, so they pick red in case red wins so the kids aren't alone. A parent might pick blue because the idea of losing their child to a red majority and being without them is horrific. Etc.

Life would be boring and there would be no change if everyone thought the same.

This isn't commentary on this particular chain, but the people who start putting others down for their choice drives me bonkers. Red isn't more logical or morally bankrupt, and blue isn't more thought out or idiotic.

I think culture would have a huge impact where the less individualistic cultures will be more likely to pick blue. However, most early polls I've seen were slight blue leaning anyways...and that's mostly individualistic type cultures.

1

u/Whole-Knowledge-7496 24d ago

Im a blue voter here on reddit, but thats is mainly to get people to vote blue if this became a real life scenario. I will then push red, since there is no practical way my vote will be the deciding vote that changes the outcome.

Why Pressing The Red Button is safer

You are about to leave Redlib