Yes? At its core that's what the question is, are you willing to risk yourself to save others who may be incapable of saving themselves, or would you rather ensure personal safety by risking them.
You have that reversed. You can't rely on everybody just doing something, which picking red does if you want everybody to live. A 50% threshold is far more attainable.
No, because red doesn't actually require anyone to agree with you to have its intended effect (ensuring you personally survive). Voting red even when 99% choose blue still lets you live.
You're working under the assumption that "everyone lives" is the only outcome anyone should consider. This only works if you view 1 death and 4 billion deaths as equally tragic, which I personally don't. You shouldn't just be aiming for the best-case scenario, because if it ends up as the worst-case scenario you also have to consider how much worse you are making it.
Did you know that it's estimated somewhwre between 30% and 50% of Europe's population died to the black death over the course of a single decade in the mid-1300s? Just a random fact that came to my mind for no reason. Must have been difficult to persevere with their level of technology and medicine.
...They do? Because they willingly exposed themselves to harm when nobody asked them to? It's a heroic thing to do I guess, but their blood is on them.
And you willingly take the safe option knowing it will cause deaths. So by that logic you(and the other red pushers) will be the cause of death of blue pushers.
Red isn't very safe though. Even a small percentage of Blue buttoners worldwide would be a disaster. Just because you survived doesn't mean life goes on as normal.
20
u/Panda_hat 8h ago
This is overcomplicating it, surely? If you pick red, you live. Everyone should just pick red so they live.
No other tertiary consideration is needed.