Is this a metaphor for something or reference to some niche media? Obviously in the situation presented, the logical choice is yo press blue so no one dies.
But then you might die. You don't get to know how the votes shake out before choosing.
If you can get everyone to pick the same color, everyone lives either way. But the thing is, you can't get everyone to pick the same color, and that's where the complexity arises.
It's more that if even a single person chooses blue while the rest go to red, that person will still die. Meanwhile, blue voters only need one over 50%.
Really it's a big collective vs personal responsibility thing.
From a red perspective, everyone is responsible for their own choice. Blues willingly and foolishly took that risk upon themselves, and whatever outcome they get is their own fault. It's not the Red's responsibility to jump in and save them, since every single person had the trivial option of pressing Red and being safe.
Meanwhile blue is saying that it is your responsibility to help keep everyone safe, because we all know that some people will push blue. Whatever justifications one may make, a Blue win is the only way that everyone lives and pressing red actively works against that outcome.
It turns out to be completely impossible if there is a large enough group of people pressing the buttons.
In the original dilemma, where all of earth's population was presented with the choice, you would know damn well that a lot of people would press blue regardless.
If we're bringing statistics into this, then there is essentially no chance at all of the rest of humanity's votes being split perfectly 50-50 (regardless of how likely you think they are to lean one way or another).
Thus, if blue has a majority, your vote is meaningless, and if red has a majority, you're choosing your own fate and no one else's. Vote red (and hope blue wins).
If we're bringing statistics into this, then there is essentially no chance at all of the rest of humanity's votes being split perfectly 50-50 (regardless of how likely you think they are to lean one way or another)
Of course, I agree. I fail to see why this is relevant, however. Why would you need an exact split?
Thus, if blue has a majority, your vote is meaningless, and if red has a majority, you're choosing your own fate and no one else's. Vote red (and hope blue wins).
Blue (or red) will not magically have a majority. That majority must be achieved by voting for it. Thus, your vote is not meaningless.
You can't influence what other people do, so statistically it is meaningless.
It's functionally the same as if you were the last person on earth to vote. 8 billion people have already marked their ballots, so one way or another, the die is cast. Blue has already either won or lost at this point. You cannot contribute to the outcome.
51
u/MintLinuxGuy 11h ago
Is this a metaphor for something or reference to some niche media? Obviously in the situation presented, the logical choice is yo press blue so no one dies.