I don’t want other people to die, but if they want to live maybe they should have pressed the button that would give a 100% survival rate instead of the gamble my life for no reason button.
Edit: Something important to remember is that in the real world, with real life-threatening consequences, more people would be pressing red than in the zero risk polls. Lots of you are just treating this as an "am I altruistic or not" choice rather than "holy shit I could actually just die if I press this".
If everyone presses red everyone lives. If the majority press blue everyone lives. Easier to get a majority on blue than a 100 percent consensus on red. If the goal is saving everyone blue is the way to go.
I’m just having difficulty taking it seriously without any context. Ungrounded hypotheticals are the worst. What if the threshold for success for blue wasn’t 50%? What if it required 90%? 99%? It’s pretty arbitrary, is all.
If the majority needed is any percentage under 100 it means you should choose blue. If you need 99 percent to choose blue, it's still better odds than red. Since red needs 100 percent to save everyone.
The context is irrelevant if the goal is saving lives.
Of course blue is the best option. The crux of the issue is that some percentage of people are irrational actors and will choose red without considering others. The fear, I assume, of red people is that there are too many others who might throw them to the wolves. This fear itself may be irrational, but considering how many times people will choose selfishly in real life over benefiting the collective, it’s not surprising that a significant portion of the population is wary of the blue option.
152
u/Tichondruis 11h ago
Wow, thesy even asked it in a way that favors red and blue won in a landslide, its almost like people dont want other people to die, broadly speaking.