In 24 hours, every single person on Earth will be transported to individual soundproof rooms, each containing a red button and a blue button.
If 50% or more people press the blue button, everyone lives.
If 50% or more people press the red button, only those who pressed the red button will live.
Everyone must participate, even toddlers and the mentally handicapped. Not choosing isn’t an option. If you refuse to choose you’ll simply be brutally tortured until you do. Nobody has a chance to confer with anyone before making their choice. Every choice is individual. You won’t know what anyone else chooses.
Why do you hate it? Everybody presses red, nothing changes. We get on with our lives as if nothing ever happened. In fact: it didn’t. Carry on.
Obviously I don’t understand what golden balls means
Assuming the OP has the power to potentially kill 49.9999…% of the world’s population by setting up this game, I don’t want to play. But “not choosing is not an option”. OK, then I fight the hypothetical by finding a way to not play his game so that nobody loses. My solution is that everybody, with no exception (except the suicidal) press red.
It feels rational and neat to me.
ETA: This is an answer to Chronos just above.
Well the obvious downside is “anyone who doesn’t pick red dies.” And picking blue is the pro-social, altruistic choice. So you’ve got to convince 100% of the players to choose the anti-social option or else someone is going to die. And I don’t want that.
Golden balls was a British game show where two players faced off with two golden balls in front of them. One ball represented “split”, and the other “steal.” If both players picked “split,” they’d walk away with half the money each – the pro-social option. If exactly one player chose “steal”, the anti-social option, they’d walk away with all of the money. (2 steals = everyone loses).
The game, as the producers intended it and how it always (bar once) played out, was that both players would try to convince the other that they were picking split, even if they were lying. However, in this one case, one player stated immediately and firmly that he was going to pick steal. The other player could then choose split and he promised he’d share half the money after the show, an act of faith in someone who was deliberately and shockingly choosing the anti-social option.
You can watch the clip I linked above, but the Radiolab episode that made the incident known to people outside the UK is better. I won’t spoil how it played out because it’s fascinating.
Anyway, you’d think that if we could just convince 51% of the players to push blue, nobody dies, of course that’s the best option. But it’s not the selfish option. If I pick red, I’m guaranteed to live, but there’s a non-zero chance that someone will die.
However, like in golden balls, if I (and 51% of players) loudly proclaim that we’re picking red, that forces everyone’s hand. They have to go along with our anti-social option. Thus, we force everyone to be anti-social in order to actually be pro-social.
Except that’s a way to play the game so that a lot of people lose. The actual no-lose solution is everybody pressing blue. I don’t see why a lots-of-people-lose solution is preferable to a nobody-loses solution.
And now I have watched your links and I agree with the one that announces he is going to “steal”. He is convincing the other that he has to split, so they share the spoils afterwards. That was highly rational, so rational, that he could and did choose split and did not have to share afterwards, because the game masters would do that for them. But he made sure the other chose right: split. Of which he could not be sure otherwise. He was not appealing to morals, he convinced him to do the right thing for both. That is what I am claiming here too: choose red. All of you. Transcend the game.
Nobody has to lose if they all choose red. You are bending to the game setter. I claim you can beat the game setter. We all can. The game setter is the immoral one here, not the ones who chose red according to his rules. The rules are wrong. Immoral. He has to be defeated. And he is if we all choose red.
If everyone chooses the same thing, nobody dies, no matter what we choose. But the red option requires perfection. The blue option does not. And perfection is impossible.
Huh? How does that defeat him? It seems to me that the only reason for him to set up the situation is because he wants red to win.
This formulation makes less sense as plenty of people will be unable to choose no matter how much you torture them.
A better way to deal with non choosers is to simply treat them as blue button pressers but don’t include them in the total. So you can choose to not take part but it won’t help anyone, yourself included.
Because we turn his immorality agaist him. He is immoral, he says so himself:
He wants people to die and is willing to torture. If we all choose red he does not get what he wants. And the people who would chose red for the wrong reasons are on board against their will.
If the “good” people chose blue, as it seems “moral”, the “bad” ones can still win. If the “good” people choose red, the “bad” people have no option to act “bad”: acting “bad” leads to the “good” option.
But again, your plan only works if you can convince everyone. Which you can’t. For starters, half of all babies and half of all colorblind people will choose blue. Your plan guarantees hundreds of millions of deaths.
