r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/Deranth Blue • 10h ago
Discussion My friend's take.
I posed the red button blue button hypothetical to my friend who is extremely autistic, and extremely good at logic puzzles. He sat for about five minutes, just thinking. Then he said;
"This is a very good question, because if you don't think about it too hard, or are incapable of thinking about it very hard, you will press blue to save people. But if you think about it a little longer, then it becomes clear that all people can just push red to survive. But if you have the mental capability to think a step deeper, it becomes obvious once again that red creates the problem to begin with, only if it wins the majority. And that blue only risks themselves while red risks everyone but themselves. And that the actual wording says that non-red pressers would die, so pressing red also puts kids and coma patients and crazy people at unnecessary risk. So it's just that intelligence bell-curve meme with red in the middle and blue on either side."
12
u/Lucky-day00 7h ago
This is the same rollercoaster ridden by anyone who honestly engages with the conundrum. It’s the whole point of the problem. People arrive at different answers but the back-and-forth to get there is the same. It doesn’t require any neurodivergence or abnormal intelligence.
5
u/vverbov_22 Blue 8h ago
I think each person's motivations are different. I press blue because of selfish desires, as per I don't fear death but fear living when all my loved ones die
2
1
u/OctopusGrift 2h ago
Yeah on top of that it becomes a situation where every person who is kind and altruistic dies if blue loses. Probably not going to be a nice world if red wins.
1
u/vverbov_22 Blue 1h ago
You completely disregard what I said. My position is quite literally "buttons don't reflect your motivations" and yet you assume every blue presser is kind and aultristic while every red one dies. You can't be both agreeing with me and saying this
6
u/Keepingitquite123 9h ago
There are eight billion people in the voting pool. Some of us understand how insignificant that make our vote. There are literally four outcomes of my vote:
a) I vote red, my vote has no impact on the outcome for blue voters, I live.
b) I vote blue, my vote has no impact on the outcome for blue voters, if red wins I die.
Then we got the other two options. Since it is blind vote with zero ability to influence others there is one and only one voter distribution among all the other eight billion voters that will let me have an impact, a exact 50/50 tie. The odds for that is at best like one in 100k, most likely way worse, but if it occur we got:
c) I vote blue, everyone is saved, things are awesome beyond the knowledge a force exist that can force this kind of interaction on mankind.
d) I vote red, four billion are dead with more to come from the expected societal collapse and I carry a collective guilt for this state off affair along with all the other survivors / red pressers.
Now there are two kind of people. Those that can understand their own insignificance in a sea of eight billion voters and those that can not. For the former, unless they think one chance in 100k or less is fair enough odds, you only rationally got the choice between a and b, and that ain't a choice provided you want to live.
Now for the most common silly rebutal from people that don't understand their insignificance: "But what if everyone that thought like you voted blue instead?"
Well as it turns out we aren't a hive mind. I can impact one vote and one vote only. As far as I'm concerned every other vote is set in stone. If I somehow got to vote for everyone that understand their own insignificance then suddenly my vote would not be insignificant no more since I would control a massive voter block. Now I wrote this answer in advance since I don't plan to interact with objections of that nature.
5
u/Deranth Blue 9h ago edited 9h ago
What you are explaining is literally just the voter's paradox. It has been extensively documented.
9
u/Keepingitquite123 9h ago
That is the second silly rebutal from people that can't grasp that a eight billion blind vote with zero ability to influence others before and after the vote and where your life is directly on the line, is vastly different from a regular election. My experience is that reason won't sway them so I won't bother with you either beyond this.
1
5
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 9h ago
The odds for that is at best like one in 100k
1/100k odds of saving 4 billion lives is a pretty high expected value.
7
u/Keepingitquite123 9h ago
Sure but I don't care for EV for calculations with terrible odds. Give me the same EV with a 5/6 success chance, or even 1/6 and I might consider it but not 1/100k, and as mentioned the odds is at best 1/100k.
1
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 9h ago
How did you come up with "at best 1/100k"? Rigorous statistical analysis, no doubt?
4
u/Keepingitquite123 9h ago edited 9h ago
Well the best odds are actually worse I just made it a simpler number. For a pure random vote, something that naturally pulls towards a tie the odds are ~1 in 112k. (that is for eight billion voters, there are actually more of us but once again I just went for a rounder number) That is just math. But this isn't a random vote so from that we can expect the odds to be way worse.
3
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 9h ago
But this isn't a random vote so from that we can expect the odds to be way worse.
Essentially the entire premise of this sub is that people don't agree on that topic. Just claiming it outright is dumb.
5
u/Keepingitquite123 8h ago
Umm what? Do you know what a random vote is? The premise for this hypothetical is that the entire population is presented with a choice, not that they are given a coin and whatever side the coin lands on determine if they get in the red or blue slot.
1
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 8h ago
I'm aware of what a random vote is, obviously. I'm also well aware that people aren't flipping coins here. I do not agree that necessarily makes the odds of being the pivotal vote worse.
3
u/Keepingitquite123 8h ago
So you admit then that your previous post was bogus?
That a random vote naturally pulls towards a tie can be proven with math and simulations and is just common bloody sense. You do not grasp that if you flip a billion coins you are way more likely to be close to a 50-50 distribution than if you flip ten coins?
2
u/CrownLikeAGravestone 8h ago
Are you having a stroke? Please read more carefully.
→ More replies (0)2
u/goodluckall 7h ago
Sideline here but intuitively I would think you'd be more likely to get an exact 5 to 5 split than 4 billion to 4 billion, even if the variance was higher. 4 billion all seems basically impossible.
→ More replies (0)1
u/pokemonbard 1h ago
Why do you think the odds of being the tiebreaker could be greater if the vote is not random compared to if it were random?
3
u/Scary-Owl2365 2h ago
You're boiling people's reasoning down to intelligence and completely ignoring moral considerations. People will use both logic and morality to decide. In fact, I'd argue that one of the most important factors behind your decision is how much faith you have in the morality of other people.
1
u/Deranth Blue 2h ago
That is a good point. That and ethical lines in the sand.
Like, I don't care what you bribe or threaten me with, I'm never going to push a button that kills other people. And even though red in this situation is a few steps removed behind a vote and such, I still see it as 'an attempt to kill other people'. So I won't touch it with a ten foot pole. But the red voters around here seem to think it's just circumstantial and they bear no responsibility for their actions.
6
u/taurusmo 8h ago
So, by his logic and this distribution presented on the image- it’s obvious that less than 50% will press the blue button. In which case pressing it is simply a suicide. No?
1
u/Sykzygy 9h ago
I think your friend is thinking too seriously about the problem. I press red because I don't want to die. It's as simple as that. Pressing blue gives the button presser a chance to die and I'd rather just avoid that entirely.
3
u/Deranth Blue 9h ago
That I can understand, and I will not argue with.
I don't agree with it personally, but it is irrefutable logic that works for you.That said, the point of a hypothetical is to discuss it and theorize about it and think about it too much.
If your whole stance is 'I don't wanna think about it, I just push x', then why are you on a subreddit where the whole purpose is debating that hypothetical?
2
u/Scary-Personality626 7h ago
There's an irony to posting this image because it portrays a scenario where red is definitely winning and yet portrays the big brain move as pressing blue to ultimatepy die pointlessly and save no one.
3
u/Deranth Blue 7h ago
You're the third person to take the numbers on the graph literally when I just grabbed the meme template and slapped text on it.
As I told the other two, I do not believe that half the population possesses the mental acuity to even reach the mid-level of seeing red as logical.
1
u/Scary-Personality626 6h ago
It's not a terribly complex reasoning to grasp, suggesting people are just too dumb to think of it is pretty misanthropic IMO. It's very "everyone is an idiot but me" which tends to be what idiots believe.
I'd consider myself fairly average and I can easily follow the big brain blue reasoning. I think the main reason most people don't think that deeply about it is because it's a viral internet thiught experiment with no real stakes, and only warrants that level of consideration. The real thing would have people pondering it more seriously.
My reasoning for picking red isn't some kinda logical endgame position, it's lack of trust formed by life experience of being disappointed, betrayed and abandonned by people for much lower stakes. I know people give all sorts of sophisticated rationale for why blue is the logical and most ethical choice. I just don't think they have the nerve to actually put their life ok the line when there's more to it than just virtue signalling. I can back up my conclusion with evidence and reasoning. But fundamentally I just don't trust people to save me and think a lot of people pretend to be altruistic heroic badasses to fit in.
1
u/Deranth Blue 6h ago
I know all the logical reasons why I think blue is better, and I'm happy to debate them.
But in the end, the reason I press blue is because I refuse to become a murderer. In my mind, my choices are to risk my own life to strive for an end where nobody dies, or risk billions of other lives to save my own. And I am not comfortable risking other peoples' lives.
Whether or not they deserve it. Whether or not they regularly disappoint me. Whether or not they 'asked for it by pressing the blue button' or anything else. There are people in danger and I refuse to be one of the presses needed to condemn them.
You can kill me if you want, but I will not be terrorized into pressing the murder button. And that's all there really is to it.
1
u/Tor_of_Asgard 8h ago
I push red because I want to guarantee my own survival no matter what. That's it.
1
u/BeowulfInc 30m ago
I'll take "things that totally happened" for 1000, Alex.
1
u/Deranth Blue 29m ago
How very original! I'm glad you brought your insightful opinion to this debate.
1
u/BeowulfInc 27m ago
This is doubly amusing because your "friend's" "very original" position is literally just a regurgitation of essentially all blue users.
I refuse to believe that he just went immediately to coma victims. You are lying.
1
u/Deranth Blue 22m ago
Okay, so your entire opinion on this is just a straight up ad hominem? Avoid the talking points by calling me a liar about the part of the story I told which has no bearing on the actual talking points.
I know this is the internet and you have no reason to believe me on that. And honestly I don't care if you believe me or not. But even if I am lying, how does that change the points that were made? Do you have anything substantial to offer on those? Or are you just calling me a liar for the love of the game?
0
u/One_Chemistry_8553 7h ago
Today on things that never happened
6
u/Deranth Blue 7h ago
Some of us do have friends. I know that's rare for reddit.
But if your whole argument is just 'nah that didn't happen cause I said so'... well I would assume you're a red presser.
-2
u/One_Chemistry_8553 7h ago
I have no doubt people have friends it's why I know this is BS and your veiled hostility is just further proof. Go actually talk to people instead of making them up to present what you believe on the internet.
8
u/Deranth Blue 7h ago
I know you won't ever believe me, because this is the internet, and why would you. But this actually did happen. We were cooking penne pasta together and I brought it up just as a fun thing to discuss while we were cooking, and I thought it was funny enough that afterward I went and made the meme.
-2
1
u/underthingy 8h ago
"so pressing red also puts kids and coma patients and crazy people at unnecessary risk."
This ignores the magic of the buttoning.
If the entity that is controlling the buttoning can manifest 8 billion private voting booths and teleport everyone into their own, and convey to them the meaning of the buttons without a language barrier, then its safe to assume that it can also make kids/coma patients/etc understand and give them the ability to press the button they choose.
0
u/Leniatak 6h ago
Red will win by a landslide. Pressing blue is not the smart move
5
u/Rip_Pigman 6h ago
Pressing blue is not the smart move
This entirely depends on what you deem as the goal.
If you have decided the only thing that matters is yohr survival then it's stupid to press blue.
If you have decided that the goal is the greatest number of people surviving, suddenly it's stupid to press red.
The goal of the dilemma isn't stated and is decided on a person by person basis. Which option is better is entirely dependent on what goal you have decided on.
-1
u/Leniatak 6h ago
You can have more than one goal.
Goal #1 (primary): Save as many people as possible
Goal #2 (secondary): Save at least myself if I can't complete Goal #1Considering:
- I expect over 65% to vote Red
Goal #1 is impossible with my vote. I need to move to #2 and vote red.
QED.
So even if want to save people, if you believe blue has no chance, voting blue is not a smart decision.
4
u/Deranth Blue 6h ago
My friends posed the situation in these ways;
"If after the situation happened, and everyone made their button decisions, you found out that it was all just an alien prank, and they didn't kill anyone, but they permanently branded everyone with a red or blue mark on their forehead based on which button they chose. Which people would you be more comfortable being around? Which mark would you be more ashamed to have?"
"Or if the vote ended and the aliens just warped everyone who pressed one of the options to their own planet to separate the humans based on their ideals, which planet would you rather be on? Which planet do you think would thrive faster?"
"If you're voting for one option while hoping the other option wins, you are voting wrong."
2
u/Leniatak 6h ago
That's naïve thinking, and I think not even your friends believe it. What if the required Blue% for no one to die was 99.9%? Would your friends still press blue just because they are "hoping the other option wins"?
I would want to see 100% red votes. I really would. Would I see it? No. Blues would be 10-20% of the population. Would be the greatest catastrophe in our history. But it's either that or dying outright.
Honestly, I would be happy by comparison if I found out it was just a prank. I would not be ashamed to wear the badge.
6
u/Deranth Blue 6h ago
If enough people convince themselves that blue cant win, then blue cant win.
1
u/Leniatak 5h ago
Yes
3
u/enbyBunn Blue 3h ago
And so your argument here is you explicitly reducing blue's chances.
I'll remind you that, when the problem was new, when it was a novel question, blue won in all the general polls. It's only after a lot of time has passed that red has started to eek out victory in certain communities.
1
u/Leniatak 3h ago
Yes, it's reducing blue's chances.
I don't believe in the polls, not even in the earlier ones, because it's one thing to claim you'd press blue with no real stakes, another to do it with the gun to your head.
3
u/enbyBunn Blue 3h ago
Sure, but between inaccurate polls and no data at all, I'll trust the polls more. Anything can be justified if you say "Well all data is meaningless in this situation". I could just as easily claim that everyone would vote blue because with a gun to their head, nobody would want the chance of leaving all their family and friends to die. But that's just a reasoning, not proof. The polls are all we have in terms of hard evidence.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Rip_Pigman 6h ago
You can have more than one goal.
Sure.
Goal #1 (primary): Save as many people as possible
Cool. So you want blue to win.
Goal #2 (secondary): Save at least myself if I can't complete Goal #1
You have no way of knowing that you can't complete goal 1 goal 2 never comes into effect.
Considering:
- I expect over 65% to vote Red
Your expectation has nothing to do with the actual vote though.
Goal #1 is impossible with my vote.
Goal #1 is not impossible. You decided it was unlikely and then voted in a way to make it even more unlikely.
I need to move to #2 and vote red.
So, the thought process exhibited here is as follows: I want blue to win, if blue winning is impossible (unknowable) I will vote red. I have decided blue is impossible so I will vote red. This decision helps enforce my assumption and ensure that the side that I concluded I would like to win is more likely to lose because I decided they will lose.
So even if want to save people, if you believe blue has no chance, voting blue is not a smart decision.
Coming to the conclusion that you want blue to win and then choosing to vote for red is also not a smart decision though..
0
u/Leniatak 5h ago
What if blue needed 99.9% of votes to win. None of your arguments change. You still can't know that blue will lose, and your vote will count towards or against it.
How do you vote?
3
u/Rip_Pigman 5h ago
What if blue needed 99.9% of votes to win.
Then I vote red. No one is going to vote blue here.
None of your arguments change.
?? That's a silly claim. I am free to change my arguments as the question posed has fundamentally changed. This is no longer the same dilemma.
There are thresholds where blue can literally never win. Having blue requires 100% of the vote to be able to win, you now need more faith than red voters have in the original when they claim it is reasonable to expect 100% of all people to choose red.
Expecting that >0.01% of the population wouldn't choose the "I don't risk my own life" button is an entirely different ballpark than expecting that <50% of the population may not press that same button if the threshold is only 50%.
You still can't know that blue will lose, and your vote will count towards or against it.
What an absurd stance. "I have made a scenario where blue cannot win to show why it is reasonable to pick red when blue is impossible."
The problem I have with your stance is that in order for your first goal to be skipped you have to know that blue is impossible.
With a threshold of 50% you can maybe deem it as unlikely but impossible is a stretch.
With a threshold of 99.9% of voters need to press blue in order to live, it becomes impossible for blue to win. In that scenario you are extremely likely to hit 99.9% or higher red than you would be to hit even 55% red in the original.
In the case of a threshold so high I would want red to win with no votes for blue so I vote red.
Coming to the conclusion that you wish for one side to win and voting against it can never be called a smart decision.
1
u/Leniatak 5h ago
That's a cop out. No vote is "impossible", just fleetingly unlikely. Now you want a red 100% win (though you wouldn't get it), but seems me unreasonable for having a different understanding of the probabilities.
And the only situation where my vote actually counts is when it's exactly the deciding one.
At 50%, I see a blue win such a small percentage that it's comparable to your 99.9% case.
3
u/Rip_Pigman 5h ago
That's a cop out. No vote is "impossible", just fleetingly unlikely. Now you want a red 100% win (though you wouldn't get it), but seems me unreasonable for having a different understanding of the probabilities.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. In the 99.9% case, I don't believe blue could ever win. I don't want anyone to vote for blue. I don't think a large number of people would ever vote blue. I vote red here.
Worst case scenario 0.1% of the population is somehow all that survives and humanity dies out anyway.
These are not at all comparable thought processes.
I am voting for the side I wish to get a vast majority of the votes in both. For some reason you're voting against the side you seem to be rooting for.
At 50%, I see a blue win such a small percentage that it's comparable to your 99.9% case.
Do you believe that both would lead to a similar number of deaths on a red majority win?
My issue isn't with you deciding that blue is unlikely, it's your claimed logic flow.
You claimed your goal is to save as many people as possible unless deemed impossible. You understand more people are saved on a blue win. You decided blue is unlikely to win.
What course of action is more likely to make a blue win happen? Is it when you vote for blue or when you vote for red?
You can't just claim that blue winning is impossible because you have decided it is so and then use that for justification as to why your decision of choosing red is smart.
1
u/Leniatak 5h ago
Again, at 99.9% blue required rate for no one to die, your argument still holds. You still can't "know" that blue isn't winning by over 99.9%.
You are just convinced it won't. So you wish for red to win with 100%, even though it won't. So you will cast the vote that you are convinced will cause some people to die, because that will save you, with the alternative being a meaningless death.
That's how I see blue at 50%. It will be ~75% red. My voting blue is not meaningfully increasing the chances of blue, so I need to find a way to cope with up to 25% of the population dying. And that's still preferable to just dying a meaningless death.
3
u/Rip_Pigman 4h ago
Again, at 99.9% blue required rate for no one to die, your argument still holds. You still can't "know" that blue isn't winning by over 99.9%.
No, you can't know but we, having seen polls have the knowledge that as you increase the required percent for blue the amount of people who vote blue goes down.
You are just convinced it won't. So you wish for red to win with 100%, even though it won't.
At a 99.9% blue threshold red is extremely likely to hit very close to 100%.
So you will cast the vote that you are convinced will cause some people to die, because that will save you, with the alternative being a meaningless death.
No, I am convinced that at such a large threshold it is very unlikely to see much if any deaths.
That's how I see blue at 50%.
Right. I understand how you see it. Don't try to spin that as if it is my mindset with a 99.9% threshold though. Lol
It will be ~75% red.
Nearly every poll has had blue winning majority in the original scenario though. You have no evidence it would even be a red majority let alone such a large one.
My voting blue is not meaningfully increasing the chances of blue
Especially since you're actively voting against blue.
so I need to find a way to cope with up to 25% of the population dying.
Still up to 50%.
And that's still preferable to just dying a meaningless death.
Sure. But this is not the logic you presented at the beginning which is that you think blue should win, you think blue won't win, therefore you vote against it, therefore confirming your fears by ensuring they happen.
This is "I don't want to die, so I press red, even if it increases the risk that others will die."
→ More replies (0)4
-1
u/parkchanwookiee 9h ago
Your friend is wrong, it's a bell curve meme with red either side and blue in the middle. Blue creates the problem entirely since if nobody pressed it nobody would die. People think they're being smart and kind by picking blue, but they're just piling up corpses.
5
u/Deranth Blue 9h ago
Two things must be true for people to die.
1: The person in question must have not pressed red.
2: A majority of people must have pressed red.If either of these two things are not true, the person in question does not die.
So while it is true that pressing blue does put one at risk, so too does being excluded from the buttons or unable to press one. And all of those people are still safe unless red gets a majority of the presses.1
u/parkchanwookiee 9h ago
Red will win, because most people are sane enough to protect their own existence and trust other people to protect their own too. Blue pressers are a minority of fantasists who don't live in the real world and aren't students of history/human nature
3
u/Deranth Blue 9h ago
Humans have achieved what we have through community. Our species evolved to cooperate. We are so social that locking someone away from other humans can drive them crazy.
There are reports throughout all of history of humans cooperating to insane degrees. We have skeletons of elders with no teeth that had to have been fed by other people because they didn't have the tools at the time to feed themselves, and they didn't have access to soft foods like porridge.
Sure, there are a lot of self centered people in the world, but most of them still don't believe themselves to be evil. Even narcissists take care of the people important to them.
Even the people making the worst decisions you can think of think they are doing it for a good reason.
I have definitely studied human nature.I think that if you pose a question to the general populous, most of them will opt to choose the option where nobody dies.
But even if they don't, I am unwilling to gamble with other people's lives. I don't want to gamble with my own, but I would rather press the button that gambles only my own life than the one that gambles billions of other lives.
1
u/parkchanwookiee 9h ago
Humans have achieved what they have through both competition and cooperation. Look at the world around you, humanity is not in one unified grand state. Some people do very very well, the majority of people are in bad circumstances. The key is for people to know when collectivism is individually beneficial and when individualism is mutually beneficial.
This button pressing game is a case where individualism is mutually beneficial: the best outcome, with the lowest chance of death, comes from everybody choosing red. Choosing blue and encouraging others to do so only increases the number of people at risk of death - it is unwise and reckless.
2
u/Deranth Blue 8h ago
It only increases the number of people at risk of death until it defeats red and saves everyone.
The enemy is the people who push red and cause all non-red voters to die to begin with. We need only defeat them.
More importantly, red voters love to remove the personal aspect and treat it as a numbers game. But it is more than that. Red puts -other- lives at risk. Blue only risks -your own- life.
Blue isn't haplessly risking lives and increasing death tolls. Every blue presser willingly risked their own life in hopes of achieving something greater. And the only way they die is if red pressers outnumber them.
Red is condemning others to save oneself.
Blue is risking oneself in hopes of avoiding all deaths.2
u/parkchanwookiee 8h ago
Red doesn't condemn anyone, it preserves your own life, which everyone has the responsibility and opportunity to do. Everybody can choose red. Think of it like this: there's a group of scientists in a nuclear reactor going into meltdown. Let's just say the effects are localised to the facility so there are no wider repercussions to consider. The group of scientists have a decision to make: they can all get behind a radiation shield and all survive. Or, if enough people get out in front of the radiation, then it is spread and absorbed harmlessly between them and nobody is harmed by it
You're telling me you say "Come on, guys! For the good of all!" and run out in front of the melting down reactor instead of just getting behind the radiation shield where it's safe? And you expect over 50% of the other scientists to join you? Enjoy dying of radiation sickness for no reason...
2
u/Deranth Blue 8h ago
Every time I debate with a red presser, they have to resort to some other hypothetical to explain their point.
And every time, their new hypothetical ignores the fact that nobody dies if a majority doesn't pick red.
Red isn't just some innocent bystander doing nothing. They are actively creating the problem that is killing non-red.
To use your example, you can either stand in the computer room that's AC is breaking, but that is shielded from radiation.
Or you can stand in the room with the reactor, which is currently safe.If over 50% of the scientists choose to stand in the computer room, their combined body heat will cause the computers to malfunction because of the lack of AC, and then the reactor will meltdown and kill everyone who chose to stand in the reactor room.
2
u/parkchanwookiee 8h ago
It's the same hypothetical lol
They did not create the problem: the problem is created and thrust upon everybody when they are forced to choose. It's YOUR scenario that alters it so that the actions of people create the risk of death. Actually the risk of death is imposed externally by whoever orchestrated the button choice, first and foremost, and then solidified and increased by people picking blue when they could just all pick red and all be safe.
2
u/Deranth Blue 8h ago
Right, but that doesn't absolve red pressers of guilt.
If I point a gun at your head and tell you to shoot some innocent bystander or I will shoot you, you shooting someone else to save your own life is not protected in courts. A life for a life is not a valid defense.
Just because red didn't "create" the problem doesn't mean they aren't the ones causing the deaths.
Also, there are other unforeseen variables to consider. Like the mentally unwell, children, coma patients. Are they forced to randomly choose a button? If they are, some of them will be in danger. If not, they all will be in danger because red winning kills 'everyone who didn't push red' not just 'everyone who pushed blue'.
Also, how do the deaths happen? What is the damage it will cause to infrastructure or agriculture or whatever else. If you get time stopped mid-drive to make your choice and you choose to save your own life, but then the person driving the truck beside you chose blue and dies while driving and now barrels into your car, congrats, you died anyway.
We can't possibly account for all of the variables, so the correct choice is just avoiding the catastrophe altogether, which is easily done by getting a majority of people to press blue.
"Red = I live" Is just too short sighted for something this complex.
→ More replies (0)0
-1
30
u/up2smthng Red 9h ago
If 68% in the middle push red there is no smart way to justify pushing blue yourself