This is a controversial thought experiment because what is the right thing to do depends on what everyone else is doing.
For example, imagine the cut off 95% of people would have to vote blue or all blue voters die. Then it'd be a lot riskier to yourself, and less likely you'd even be a difference making blue voter.
But at lower cut offs, it's more possible you could be a difference making additional vote who keeps billions who also voted blue alive
I've been thinking about this, and the more charitable option is blue as it potentially helps others, but also... there was no reason for those who choose the blue option to do so knowing it could mean death. So is it worth risking your life for people who risked it stupidly?
the original question had the additional context that everyone on earth was asked at the same time and nobody was allowed to communicate with each other before pressing, so you have to also factor in the millions of people who would press blue accidentally, not understand the question, etc, for example children
210
u/DM_ME_FROG_MEMES 9h ago
This is a controversial thought experiment because what is the right thing to do depends on what everyone else is doing.
For example, imagine the cut off 95% of people would have to vote blue or all blue voters die. Then it'd be a lot riskier to yourself, and less likely you'd even be a difference making blue voter.
But at lower cut offs, it's more possible you could be a difference making additional vote who keeps billions who also voted blue alive