with death as the potential consequence, I would hope very few. You don’t think people are going to put on their thinking caps and think especially carefully about this decision? You think this is just going to be some kind of flippant “I don’t have time to think too carefully about this” decision?
Everyone has the chance to save themselves if they pick red. Think if it is framed this way: “If you pick the red button, you guarantee your safety. Everyone has the chance to guarantee their own safety. If you pick the blue button, you are leaving your safety up to the decisions of others.” Which button should you pick when stated that way?
If you and everyone else press the blue button, no one dies. If you and people like you press the red button, at least a billion people die. How does it sound when you put it that way?
A lot of people will pick blue including me. There is no non selfish justification for pressing red. Only rationalization about how you’re not the bad guy when you kill over a billion people.
I would also like to point out that the US is on the extreme end of an individualist culture. Most cultures are more collectivist and more likely to choose the good of everyone than a selfish advantage. I’m not sure if our hypothetical accounts for this by making it a global vote, but if it does then we’ve got a few billion blue votes right there.
I think you’re starting from the position that anyone that would choose blue is just not as smart or thoughtful or insightful for you (and therefore it’s their fault when they die) but that’s simply not true. The majority pushing blue is by far the most favorable outcome, and the people who choose that are picking the optimal result. If we get out of this one by choosing billions dead instead of zero dead, it’s the red pushers that fucked up, not the blue. Just because they survive doesn’t mean they were right.
You failed to answer several of my questions. Realistically, what percentage of the population do you think dies off in the scenario where everyone who thinks like you presses red?
It’s very unlikely in the cold light of the button-pushing booth that 50% will push blue. It’s not voting to raise taxes or legalize drugs – it’s simply a decision on whether you want to be alive in a post red-button world.
You are guaranteed to save yourself by picking red. Everybody has that guarantee.
The way I see it, each person that picks blue is voting to maximize overall harm, unless and until the 50%+1 threshold is reached. With no information about what others voted or will vote, one choice you, personally, can make could lead to you being one of four billion dead at the end of the scenario; the other can not.
Again, realistically, someone give me some numbers. How many people do you think are going to pick blue? 3 billion? 4 billion? Are you content to kill 3 or 4 billion people and pat yourself on the back about how smart you are by picking red? When literally no one had to die before you got too cute with it?
Saying the blue side is maximizing harm is insane given that the options are 3 or 4 billion dead people vs 0 dead people. You give all this convoluted reasoning as to why red makes sense, but the only reason you’re doing that is because you want a selfish guarantee. Without trying to benefit yourself to the tune of 3 billion or 4 billion to one over the rest of humanity, it would be immediately and obviously apparent why we should be picking blue. You’re saying “my personal safety is worth more than the lives of at least 1 billion people who will choose blue” when you could choose zero deaths.
“If everyone just picks red no one has to die” is an absurd take on reality. Yes, it’s technically true, but people are going to choose blue for a variety of reasons. We’re not talking about the entire world conferring ahead of time and then agreeing to take red. We’re talking about 8 billion independent decisions.
I want one of you “no one has to die if we all pick red!” people to give me your sincere, honest estimate as to how many people are going to pick blue and die.
Saying that 100% of 8 billion people picking red is a realistic goal is absurd. Saying that it’s a more realistic goal than 50%+1 picking blue is not even in the realm of possibility.
Be honest. Tell me “yes, 2 billion people will die, but I’m okay with that because my personal strategy guarantees my survival”
The only reason you’re even considering red is that you’re worried that people are going to do to you what you’re going to do to them.
As SenorBeef said, there is always going to be a certain percentage of people who will vote blue for some reason. And if that’s even just merely 1% of the global population, that’ll be 80 million deaths.
This is not the prisoner’s dilemma. This is the equivalent of the prisoners having an option where they both go free if they both dissent. There is no greater benefit for cooperation in this scenario, and choosing red does not mean anyone has to suffer for your decision. It’s insane to think that anyone would choose blue.
I cannot take a “it’s insane to pick blue” position seriously. That is completely unjustified. It’s logically and morally bankrupt. It’s one thing if you’re going to say that you choose red, but to say that it’s insane for anyone to choose blue is absolutely bonkers. You are all willing to kill literally billions of people instead of taking the option where you kill no one, and you think anyone else is insane.
Disagree. Logic dictates red. Unlike more difficult puzzles, there is no cooperation required for everyone to win. Everyone picking red gets to win equally, and there is no middle result.
Give me your best guess about how many people you’re going to kill. All of you have refused to do that over and over again. If your position is so obviously superior, it should be easy for you to tell us how you’d condemn billions to death.
Nobody has to die. Me picking red does not kill anyone. You picking BLUE is suicide. The only thing that would make your position true, and make this puzzle more interesting, is if there was a stipulation where everyone dies if 95% chose RED, or something like that. But as it sits, there is no downside to RED. There is nothing noble about Blue. You’re not saving anyone. You’re not helping anything.
Assume for a minute that the person you most cherish in the world is colorblind. Or just someone that doesn’t want billions to die because their calculus is different than yours.
It absolutely does, and I consider it to be moral cowardice to you pretend it doesn’t. There is absolutely zero chance that everyone in the world picks red. Ergo, you’re going to kill people. Very likely in the billions.
What is your realistic guess? Not “well no one HAS to die.” How many people do you think actually would pick blue?
Oh please. That is not what this question is about. If you’re adding to the scenario, then Assume for a minute that the buttons are labeled. And the labels spell out the colors in every language. How’s that? And there is an audio component for all the def people, and a pictograph of the results for all the illiterate people.