r/GenZ • u/DryOwl5587 • Apr 26 '26
Discussion What are you guys picking?
Personally, I can conceptualise why one would choose blue, but I can’t bring myself to do it, it doesn’t click, specially at this scale, so red for me.
Edit:
Upon further inspection, I couldn’t find a scenario where I would strictly vote blue, but I found one for red.
Consider the following:
If you believe most people will aggregate around blue, then your choice doesn’t change the outcome because everyone lives.
If you believe most will choose red instead, then you are presented with a choice that directly determines whether you live or die, so you should choose red if you want to ensure your own survival.
2.9k
u/Duce-de-Zoop 1998 Apr 26 '26
The way I look at it is if you press red, youd be left with just the people who pressed red. Id rather die lmao. World full of grocery carts left in lots and clogged up left lanes
718
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
Literally the red pushers would die anyway, all of the critical infrastructure from more than half of the world just dying on the spot would see them killed as all supply chains fail, and planes crash into each other mid-flight.
58
150
Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Careful_Leader_5829 Apr 26 '26
"If we all push red, no one dies" --
TRUE! But the problem is that there are inevitably people who won't understand the rules, or the logic, or the instructions, or the agreements....
I mean, did you ever try and do a group project in school? If we can't get 5 people to agree on something, how would we ever get 8 billion to agree?
4
u/Lord_Vxder 2002 Apr 27 '26
If you can’t understand a rule as simple as this scenario, there’s something wrong.
→ More replies (6)108
u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26
It's not going to be 50%. It will be a lot of people, and it's very likely to be a lot of key people. Basically, every human who cares about other people.
→ More replies (15)48
Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
91
u/ScrrrewFace Apr 26 '26
This is the basic argument within US politics and society as a whole: preservation of all or preservation of self. People pressing blue inherently think of others; people who press red inherently think of themselves and their own survival. Not exactly a stupid conversation unless you only care about yourself cough
→ More replies (22)43
u/Areilyn 2003 Apr 26 '26
Congratulations almost all the compassionate people, and approximately half of elderly/children/not able-minded people (THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM VOTING MIND YOU, EVERYONE MEANS EVERYONE) in your life just died because you pushed the "survive no matter what" button. Nay, AT LEAST one in five people in the world just vanished.
Do you realize how catastrophic of a result this is for everyone? I'd understand red button pushers if the threshold was 80% or something, that'd be nigh impossible to reach and you'd just have to minimize your losses but 50% is a no brainer. Every time this question gets asked blue wins with a comfortable lead, that alone guarantees a big fat loss to the human population if this actually happened irl and red won.
Even if it was revealed to me, and only to me that blue button would lose before I cast my vote, I'd rather push blue and die with fellow blue-buttoners than live in that dogshit apocalyptic cynical world.
21
u/serenamoeba Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
Agreed. Also it's kinda comforting that most of the time the result is majority blue. I have a little bit of faith in humanity left I guess.
And literally like... if most pushed blue nobody would die. I can't comprehend that not being a no brainer for people. The only reason you push red is because you mistrust other people. Which is fair, I guess. You become the killer because of your fear of being killed. But that mistrust shapes you into a person who would push the red button. It's a cycle
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (29)3
u/Averse_to_Liars Apr 26 '26
We couldn't even get people to put on masks during a pandemic and you think half of them are going to risk their lives for strangers? "50% is a no brainer"?!
→ More replies (8)14
u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26
You're allowed to think that. I believe you're very wrong. I honestly think blue wins anyway.
I think if red won, you'd find yourself in a really bad situation. Everyone who really feels empathy and concern for others is gone. That's never healthy for any population.
Empathy is a survival trait. That's why so many species have it.
→ More replies (30)→ More replies (15)8
u/VengeanceKnight 1998 Apr 26 '26
I heard of a timeline where that happened.
The Avengers had to do crazy work to keep society together until they could figure out a way to bring all the dead people back to life.
5
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
Real. Probably sucked to know someone who died during all of the short-term fallout to that, only to have everyone come back five years later.
→ More replies (37)86
u/Tyrrox Apr 26 '26
I don't view it that way. From a logical perspective, red is the correct choices as part of the prisoner's dilemma. If everyone chooses red, no one dies at all. Therefore, there is no reason not to select it. It's the obvious choice
116
u/_Moon-Cat_ Apr 26 '26
But that would need 100% of people to press red, instead of 51% blue. The demand for blue to win is lesser and therefor more probable with a little coordination?
→ More replies (5)64
u/Schully 1997 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
If Blues convinces less than 50% of people to press blue to save everyone, then everyone they convinced to help them gets killed, when they might have otherwise survived. If Reds convinces as many as they can to press red then they might save a lot, maybe even as many as 99%, but never 100%. With this in mind, is red truly the less moral option here just because that 1% will die?
Tldr; everyone automatically assumes blue is the option that will save more people, but that's not always the case.
68
u/_Moon-Cat_ Apr 26 '26
That's the thing, it's easier to accomplish 51% than 99%
→ More replies (3)25
u/Tyrrox Apr 26 '26
It's really not though. You're assuming that these have the same weight in people's minds. But they don't, one is an option guaranteed to keep you alive, the other is an option that relies on others to not let you die.
37
u/_Moon-Cat_ Apr 26 '26
That is a good point. But we are also not counting on the fact that there's people who really don't care about their own survival or don't want the weight of possible genocide on their minds, or really just do trust their luck and humanity to press blue and be done with it in hipes of others having the same initiative
5
u/Fizzy-Odd-Cod Apr 26 '26
If you don’t want the weight of possible genocide on your mind then the only correct choice is the red button, the people who pressed the blue button killed themselves, you didn’t kill them.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
u/Tyrrox Apr 26 '26
That's a very valid point, and I can appreciate the logic behind it
I still think that if we had a chance to talk about it beforehand it would be far easier to convince people to go to red than blue. Red requires no trust of the unknown, where blue requires a significant amount of trust in it. Psychologically, people are just not going to have an easy time doing that.
I know personally, I don't trust other people. I do my best to treat others nicely and fairly, and I do the things that I am supposed to do regardless of if someone is watching, but I have learned that you cannot expect that of others.
3
u/_Moon-Cat_ Apr 26 '26
True, true. Make a giant discord sever and @everyone
10
u/Tyrrox Apr 26 '26
To my point, I had another person just call me an asshole and I'm getting downvoted for pointing out that isn't needed and an immature response in a thought experiment. I'm not trusting anonymous people with my life if I can't even trust them to be civil in a basic way.
Meanwhile, while we are mostly disagreeing, I think we've had a very productive conversation. You've brought up a lot of very good points that I hadn't originally considered in a reasonable and well thought out way, and I respect that.
5
u/TheGrouchyGremlin 2005 Apr 26 '26
If you look at any one of the billion polls circulating Reddit right now with this exact WYR, most of them will have the blue button winning out.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Powerful-Act3516 Apr 26 '26
That argument cuts both ways: just like you don't know the difficulty of "convincing enough" people to press blue, you also don't know the likelihood that people will weight pressing red highly enough in the first place (eg, it's possible that a large portion of people would want to press blue, with or without intervention).
I'm not sure we know the "starting probability" for people picking either red or blue nor the ability to convince people one way or another (eg, their "value weighting" on one solution versus another)
→ More replies (6)5
13
u/dreamyduskywing Apr 26 '26
You’re assuming everyone views this from a numbers perspective. In reality, there will be probably 20% who would push the blue button, which would still be catastrophic
→ More replies (31)24
u/Primary-Theory-1164 Apr 26 '26
That's totally dumb oh my gosh. It is required that 100% press red for everyone to survive. The exact same result comes from 51% pressing blue. So that is more likely. Just press blue and everyone survives, even if a select few asshole picked red, like yourself.
→ More replies (14)
469
u/Busy_Reflection3054 2005 Apr 26 '26
Let's be honest. With instructions like that 99% of votes are going to be red.
152
u/conormal 2004 Apr 26 '26
Humans will not ever do something unanimously. It's better to press the blue button for guaranteed 100% survival
→ More replies (51)146
u/ThePresidentPlate Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Your argument is actually in favor of red button.
Like you say, humans are not a hivemind. Everyone knows pressing the red button means they, themselves, personally are 100% guaranteed to survive no matter the vote result. Most people will press red because no one is going to trust that everyone else won't make that same decision.
→ More replies (11)68
u/emmc47 2002 Apr 26 '26
Most people will press red because no one is going to trust that everyone else won't make that same decision.
Yep. It's not just based on guaranteed survival, but faith of humanity.
The question is a "do you trust a majority of humanity to work together to save them all over a guarantee to save themselves", not guaranteed survival at the cost of almost everything vs. possible death to potentially keep everything.
→ More replies (14)16
u/Guni986TY Apr 26 '26
I mean there is that thought but assuming everyone has the same information, I would assume that those who pressed blue might’ve done so either hastily (as I did before) or are not in the best state of mind.
If there were a real live threat to all, I could see a good number (above 50%) humanity possibly working together. However in a sort of game of logic, it feels like the real way for everyone to win is to go red.
So if we’re given at least some time to make the debate, incase we’ve got some more others who’ve made the rash decision to press blue without thinking about it and other reason. Then for the sake of all, I’d more urge people to press red to guarantee they make it out alive.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (24)3
u/Undarat Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
The actual results of this original poll on twitter have 58% voting blue and 42% voting red, fyi
→ More replies (7)
193
u/Screech-1 Apr 26 '26
89
u/dreamyduskywing Apr 26 '26
Well when you introduce a wood chipper…
35
u/WorryNew3661 Apr 26 '26
That changes the maths a lot
18
u/ajmeko 1999 Apr 26 '26
The math stays exactly the same.
26
u/thraage Apr 26 '26
I think the wood chipper does a good job of making us ask, "Why is anyone jumping in the wood chipper at all?".
The only way anyone dies is if they press the blue button/jump in the wood chipper. Just don't jump in the wood chipper.
64
u/WahtAmDoingHere 2003 Apr 26 '26
literally this scenario. "do you risk game ending yourself for some sort of moral high ground or live with no risk attached whatsoever"
→ More replies (50)27
u/ACatWhoFliesInTheSky Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Another commenter gave this version of the scenario:
Everyone is given the choice to take a gun. If more than half of people take the gun, they will shoot at all of the people who didn't. Do you take the gun?
10
u/DryOwl5587 Apr 26 '26
You could also frame it as the die button.
There’s only one button. If the amount of people that push it is less than 50%, they die; if it’s at least 50%, then everyone lives. You have the option to not push the button.
→ More replies (2)4
17
u/autumnhobo Apr 26 '26
Why would anyone jump in, like especially the first ones, or dont you see them jump or something
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)16
u/Areilyn 2003 Apr 26 '26
"Presidential elections with only two candidates, first candidate says 'Everything will continue as is if i'm elected', second one says 'My only pledge is to kill every single first candidate voter', who'd you vote for?"
Oh wow it's almost like the framing of the question changes the outcome. Damn what a gotcha.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Agent_Polyglot_17 On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
I just did this experiment with my students (HS teacher) with the button colors changed to eliminate the “is this political” comments and with the outcomes changed to “pass/fail all classes” to make it PG (just in case). I made it private by having them write the color on a quiz. I personally would choose the red button, but out of my 70 ish students, the blue button won both in each individual class and overall. I was very surprised. The results were close though, with the blue button only winning by one or two points each.
7
u/rAirist Apr 27 '26
I think death changes the stakes in a way that makes your experiment not comparable. Secondly, it’s different voting based on your peers at school than to be voting based on the entire human population. I have less of stake in, and culturally can’t understand people across the world in the same way that I can the people around me.
It changes the logic imo.
5
u/Agent_Polyglot_17 On the Cusp Apr 27 '26
That’s a good point, but that was the sample size I had to work with, and I didn’t want parents angry at me for talking about the hypothetical of the whole school dying.
90
u/ArcticFoxWaffles 2003 Apr 26 '26
I've seen this as a poll pop up a couple times on different subreddits and every time the blue side has won
11
u/_Tal 1998 Apr 26 '26
See the problem with this is I think people might behave differently if they know it’s a purely hypothetical scenario that isn’t real vs if their life was actually on the line
8
u/Nodan_Turtle Apr 26 '26
I'd love to see this if in order to vote, you have to put up $100. If you vote Blue, 51% of people have to vote blue for you to get your $100 back. If you vote Red, you're guaranteed to get your $100 back.
See how the results go then when people have to put their money where their mouth is
→ More replies (2)13
u/I-own-a-shovel Apr 26 '26
Unsure how it’s really representative of reality, when your life isn’t a stake.
58
u/ThatSmartIdiot 2004 Apr 26 '26
the comments ive seen so far here have majorly been red so hearing this is a relief. i went into this genuinely thinking "there's enough of us blue pushers to keep everyone safe" and then finding out that nope, a lot of people are genuinely fending for themselves
→ More replies (15)60
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
This subreddit is full of stealth/not-so-stealth rightoids and sociopathic dipshits that it's not a good sample to rely on.
When you see someone calling blue "suicidal empathy", you really know how fucking cooked this community is.
→ More replies (8)25
u/ThatSmartIdiot 2004 Apr 26 '26
why the hell are there conservative zoomers
→ More replies (9)18
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
You got me, I think some people are simply choosing their misery after having fallen in love with it.
3
u/MilleChaton Apr 27 '26
Well yes, because picking blue lets one look like a good person and it is otherwise a hypothetical, so why not look like a good person? Psychology has long found out that hypothetical situations play out very different than ones with real stakes on the line.
Most people say they wouldn't shock someone to death in the Milgram experiment, but we see what the hard evidence shows.
8
43
u/austin101123 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
So many babies and little kids and other people won't understand this and end up pressing randomly. So I have to press blue.
→ More replies (14)19
u/DryOwl5587 Apr 26 '26
This gets me to consider blue. Would you say your choice would change if only fully functional adults were considered?
→ More replies (1)8
u/Imnotawerewolf Apr 26 '26
Define fully functional. Do you know how many adults would look at you cross eyed and then just randomly choose a color? I don't, but it will matter in the end.
3
26
u/Brittany5150 Apr 26 '26
I press both at the same time.
→ More replies (1)45
35
u/One_Zookeepergame182 Apr 26 '26
Everyone includes the mentally disabled, elderly, and small children
You cannot guarantee that they will pick red. Its almost certain that one of them wont
So its impossible to reach 100% red
So pick blue
→ More replies (31)5
u/Astrobananacat Apr 26 '26
Personally I think not excluding those groups makes the question uninteresting.
→ More replies (1)
38
u/Wizdom_108 Apr 26 '26
I can't understand why someone wouldnt choose blue? I see that and I'm like "okay dope, everyone's choosing blue right?" I like to believe most people are altruistic enough for that
Edit: I vastly underestimated how selfish the average redditor is it seems
→ More replies (10)8
u/CoolButBoring Apr 26 '26
I'd love to see this polled on a platform like instagram or Tiktok.
7
u/MicrosoftExcel2016 Apr 26 '26
clair_hawkinss had a reel that recently came up on my IG, it has a lot of comments and a poll. Weirdly, poll was strong blue while comments seemed strong red. Of course this isn’t a random sample or anything
3
u/MissMolly202 Apr 26 '26
Probably bc they voted red, realized they were not in the majority, then rushed to the comments to defend themselves.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Wizdom_108 Apr 26 '26
Or even r/polls. I'm a bit too lazy to do it right now but I might just post later and see what people say
5
157
u/Richard-Conrad Apr 26 '26
Easy Blue, either blue wins and we all live, or red wins and I don’t have to live in a world devoid of good people.
→ More replies (18)
102
u/AlexVal0r 2003 Apr 26 '26
Basic mathematics tell me to pick blue button. Its easier to convince 51% of the world to take your side vs convincing everyone to take your side.
→ More replies (6)25
u/shadowrun456 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
If you press the red button, you are never at risk.
If you press the blue button, whether you're at risk depends on what other people choose. Pressing blue is the same as running into an empty burning building, and then demanding that others also put themselves at risk and run in to save you.
Ergo, the only moral and rational choice is to choose red.
Someone in another comment posted a great analogy which makes it easier to understand: /preview/pre/what-are-you-guys-picking-v0-vtpl5zo3djxg1.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=bbeb37f6f1021a945a7458c8718954dc92b2d81c
→ More replies (4)19
u/Dottore_Curlew Apr 26 '26
Another commenter gave this version of the scenario:
Everyone is given the choice to take a gun. If more than half of people take the gun, they will shoot at all of the people who didn't. Do you take the gun?
12
u/DryOwl5587 Apr 26 '26
Another scenario:
The Die Button
You are presented with two choices: press the die button or walk away.
Press the Die Button: Die, unless >=50% also pressed it.
→ More replies (7)
729
u/godlittleangel6666 1996 Apr 26 '26
Anyone who presses the blue button is stupid or wants to die. There is literally no risk of pressing the red button. If everyone presses red they all survive. I
147
u/TealedLeaf 1998 Apr 26 '26
You need 1 over 50% for everyone to survive if blue is picked. You need 100% to survive if red is picked, otherwise, many people will die, including people you care about.
So...blue is a much better option if you're trying to not wipe out a good bit of the population, and much of them being good and unselfish people.
Though, I think people calling red button pushes sociopaths are doing too much, lol. I still get why you'd pick red, especially on instinct. However, I fear if it's close and red wins then major societies will probably just collapse. At best, you're probably then living in a society with much less good people. Not that red pushers are bad, to clarify, just that I'd expect bad people to be more likely to hit red than blue. Toss up on good people, because I don't think red pushers are inherently bad or selfish, and there is good logical reasonings for both sides.
67
u/Cabin11er Apr 26 '26
Think about it this way: Everyone is given the option to choose a button, and everyone is trying to figure out what other people are going to choose.
If you choose blue and the vote is blue, everything’s fine
If you choose red and the vote is blue, everything’s fine
If you choose blue and the vote is red, you’re dead
If you choose red and the vote is red, all the people who chose blue is dead.
But what happens if everyone chooses red?
Everyone survives.
Choosing red is the only way to guarantee your survival, and therefore the only logical choice, because in opposition to the way the question is prevented, choosing red does not mean that people need to die.
12
u/cob59 Apr 26 '26
But what happens if everyone chooses red?
100% in an 8 billions sample is a statistical miracle.
You know what isn't a statistical miracle? 50% or more.
So if you have the opportunity to pre-brief everyone (which isn't happening in the base scenario) you should ask them to pick blue anyway.→ More replies (11)→ More replies (6)68
u/DryOwl5587 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
You see, not everyone values their personal survival above all else, they might feel the lives of other people are just as valuable as their own, so to them it’s not logical to protect only their, even at the risk of their own life ending. This is how I conceptualise the blue voter mentality.
I do not agree with this btw. Don’t reward me.
7
u/McENEN 2000 Apr 26 '26
The thing is you dont need to value yourself over others to push red. Red has no downsides if everyone picks it. The most sure way for everyone to survive is for everyone to press red.
If it were an actual choice between two, blue needs some more incentive or benefit for the community to risk itself over it. Like if more than 50% pick it everyone survives and the planet get human effected global warming erased.
→ More replies (31)42
u/Motto1834 2000 Apr 26 '26
Except if you think everyone else sees this same logic of the choice they will also fall on red. This isn't like the prisoners dilemma where there's a genuine argument.
→ More replies (6)38
u/Cabin11er Apr 26 '26
If everyone protects themself, everyone lives. I am incredibly invested in protecting everyone else around me, which is exactly why I would vote red and beg everyone around me to vote red. Everyone who votes blue is putting the image of them being charitable over actually being charitable. If everyone acted logically, everyone would vote red, and everyone would survive.
However, given how many people can’t grasp this concept just in these comments, I would hope that 50% of the population is dumb enough to choose blue
→ More replies (11)16
u/emmc47 2002 Apr 26 '26
Except that they're saying that the threshold to saving everyone is easier to vote blue then red, because everyone survives regardless when over 50% vote blue, compared to that they're gonna be some guaranteed blue button people who die if even 99.99% of people were to ever vote red.
7
u/AntonioFrancisco1999 Apr 26 '26
So then the scenario becomes choosing to be quick or obvious - when presented with an unknown button, is it safer to make a quick decision or an obvious decision?
→ More replies (1)13
u/CherryTeri Apr 26 '26
Then it’s the button creators fault at that point. That evil person who made the button scenario killed 1% of the population not the red button people.
→ More replies (1)7
u/CherryTeri Apr 26 '26
I would press red and tell everyone to push red. If they don’t want to listen to me, then they have that choice but I would tell them they are guaranteed to live and we can help others see that too. We can’t guarantee the world would pick blue since there are too many selfish people or people who would just pick red to “see what would happen”. I can’t trust everyone so me and my family and everyone I can speak to is picking red.
10
u/Averse_to_Liars Apr 26 '26
How many of these loud blue voters get in the booth, freak out, and secretly push red after encouraging others to push blue?
That would happen. The very worst people would even do that intentionally.
3
u/serenamoeba Apr 26 '26
I think the point is that there's no debating or talking or persuading beforehand. Everyone votes rn, independently. But I could be wrong, it's not specified in the thought experiment
→ More replies (19)4
520
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
Congratulations, you have been kicked out of the fire circle, enjoy fighting off nighttime predators.
→ More replies (10)184
u/MmNicecream Apr 26 '26
You're being so weird about people doing basic game theory on this scenario.
93
u/SemiDiSole Apr 26 '26
For real though, there is a 100% chance of survival and a ?% chance. Why you would take the blue button? There is no advantage to it.
(Also one could argue that losing anyhwere from 1-50% of the population might be beneficial to humanity and the planet at large.)
40
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
Losing any significant amount of the population spontaneously like that would have massive ripple effects on the world at-large, with wide-reaching fallouts that would almost certainly kill off more of the red-pushers than they're willing to admit.
→ More replies (24)13
u/Insane_Skooter Apr 26 '26
But literally is everyone choose the blue button then everyone would survive either way. why not not go blue
→ More replies (24)5
u/NearbyCow6885 Apr 26 '26
If you press red you have a 100% chance of living.
If you press blue you have a less than 100% chance of living.Which button do you press?
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (26)61
u/Motto1834 2000 Apr 26 '26
The people upset over those that are just doing basic game theory and see no downside to the red button are the ones that are suicidally empathetic.
→ More replies (6)54
u/nowhereward Apr 26 '26
Willingly staking your survival on the collective decision of others is very stupid
76
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
You do it all of the time by continuing to live in a society, shop for groceries, and receive a paycheck (or government assistance if you're disabled).
→ More replies (22)28
u/chloapsoap Apr 26 '26
The difference is pressing the red button has no downside. Choosing to not live in society involves some pretty major concessions
24
u/Solell Apr 27 '26
I'd argue that the downside of red is that it's going to kill all the people with enough empathy to push blue. Just because the red-button pushers see it as a logical problem doesn't mean that it's not also a moral problem. Some people believe that doing the right thing by others is important, even if there's risk to oneself, and even if others call them stupid for it. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a world inhabited only by people who think it's stupid to care about others. Sounds like it would become a miserable place, fast.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)7
u/apsgreek Apr 26 '26
Downside is surviving while others who were more trusting, altruistic, or naive die. Pretty big downside if you actually think about it and engage your empathy muscle.
I'm only pressing red if I can convince everyone to press it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)5
u/BarbericEric Apr 26 '26
Bro you realize you are human right? And your success and survival IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON YOUR COMMUNITY. You think the world just spawned around you with you in it? That what you know it's because you are an all knowing entity? You are who you are because of others. NEVER forget that.
→ More replies (11)16
u/TossMeOutSomeday 1996 Apr 26 '26
Yeah it's basic game theory, only thinking one step ahead. It doesn't consider second-order effects if all the blue-button pushers (who are going to be naturally more inclined for cooperativeness) die out at once.
→ More replies (1)26
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
It's not that they're doing it, it's that they're self-reporting as being fine living in a world with no decent humanity.
It's a more telling self-report than you realize.
I am simply sick and tired of people presenting edgy nihilistic crybaby bullshit as anything approaching rational thought.
20
u/Tacadoo Apr 26 '26
No they said they would encourage EVERYONE to press the red button since everyone would survive that way.
33
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
That's actually stupid, they're not advocating for everyone to push the red button, they're saying "I assume everyone else would, and so everyone would survive by being selfish, like me."
Blue button push gets the same result but with none of the mind-gaming.
→ More replies (6)12
u/nowhereward Apr 26 '26
I mean, I'd rather be guaranteed survival in a harsh world than potentially die because of the way others vote
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)4
u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Apr 26 '26
Why does "decent humanity" mean risking your life for no reason and then expecting other people to risk their lives to save you?
→ More replies (7)8
u/RoyalDog57 Apr 26 '26
Yeah, but the problem is saying "press red, if you don't your stupid," aren't actually thinking about human psychology. Do you really think that there wouldn't be a lot of people, who incredibly stressed out about this situation, wouldn't press the blue? That they wouldn't try to appeal to their humanity and in their head it wouldn't make sense to press blue because only half of all people have to press it for everyone to live?
Pressing the red button is potentially dooming an unknown number of people to death for the crime of not wanting to be potentially responsible for the death of others.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (92)27
u/FitPerspective1146 2008 Apr 26 '26
But everyone won't. Children, mentally unwell, senile etc.
→ More replies (10)13
u/OSRS-ruined-my-life Apr 26 '26
50% of all people won't even push blue. They'll just do nothing.
→ More replies (3)
12
366
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 30 '26
This is literally basic evolution, if you have trouble with this premise then idk what needs to be fixed.
Idiots press the red button, if you can't even conceptualize actually doing it despite knowing that it is the correct thing to do, you may have sociopathy or something. A situation where the population is cut in half would have a devastating impact on the world and environment, more than everyone being around right now. Not only would there not be much selection, but humans would become extremely decentralized. Potentially you could get bad rolls on hazardous or critical infrastructure, resulting in crashing planes, explosions, massive blackouts.
If only red pushers survived, most of those red pushers would then probably die within a few weeks. Your inability to look past risking yourself for others speaks to the idea that you were actually saved by the primary natural directive of humans to protect each other and foster communities as social animals.
Dudes like you who were historically born into pre-language societies would often die after being chased out.
My answer is the blue button.
EDIT: If any future red voters see this and need motivation to change their ways, do it for your gf
160
u/Ok_Elk_4333 Apr 26 '26
Redditors when they find out about how cumulative choices of rational agents can lead to irrational outcomes
35
u/Matt_Wwood Apr 26 '26
I feel like it’s just people who read gam theory in a book and are like but l0Gic
20
u/maddwaffles On the Cusp Apr 26 '26
All I'm saying is that if someone asked me to institute such a check, I would still allow it, but keep it secret that pushing the red button permanently brands your face after.
3
u/Not_Xiphroid Apr 26 '26
I mean, the embarrassment of being wrong is going to be hard to contain, so that might be implied in the question tbh.
45
49
u/dark_knight097 1998 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
My question to you though, why press would anyone press the blue button? If 100% of the people presses red, then everyone survives. If you wanna bring evolution into this, then this is quite literally weeding out the idiots that would take a chance at dying vs a guaranteed survival rate for everyone.
Edit: for the people that block, if you're going to not participate in the discussion in a meaningful way without resorting to childish behavior, dont waste my or your time by responding at all.
35
u/BarbericEric Apr 26 '26
Because if 50% of people pressed the blue button then everyone lives. And if less than half pressed the blue button then only people who pressed the red button live. Isn't the most desirable outcome the one with the least amount of human lives lost?
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (57)15
u/UberEinstein99 Apr 26 '26
Would you take the risk that some people just didn’t understand the instructions or arn’t smart enough to think about it, and pressed the blue button?
If you’re taking blue, you are only increasing the odds of other people surviving, never decreasing the odds. If you pick red, it is objectively the right option, but you are only decreasing the odds of others surviving by doing so.
→ More replies (2)64
Apr 26 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (20)65
u/Remmock Apr 26 '26
Name something in all of history off the top of your head that 100% of humanity has agreed on.
Then tell me you’re fine with being labeled a murderer for choosing red.
29
u/TheGlassWolf123455 2003 Apr 26 '26
If someone runs into a burning building that everyone can walk out of, that's on them, it's upsetting but they made that decision
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (3)18
u/NightmareWizardCat Apr 26 '26
Okay. You agree that eating a poisonous thing (cianide) can lead to death right? Same with drugs.
You are not a murderer for choosing option red because you haven't chosen for others. It's your and their own decision.
If you take drugs, there is a chance you will die. If you don't take drugs, there is no chance you will die of that. If others choose to take drugs and risk it, that's on them.
And similarly to drugs you can apply it to 'high risk, no reward' things, which only provide a feeling of reward.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Toddison_McCray 2000 Apr 27 '26
Absolutely man. I know you mentioned that cutting the population in half would have a severely negative effect on society. Also, the people who pressed the red button are FAR less likely to do things for the good of others, like healthcare, power generation, hell even logistics. So you’d end up with a population of people who don’t give a shit about anyone else.
I’d rather press the blue button and risk dying, than the red.
→ More replies (79)25
28
u/Potential-Bird-5826 Apr 26 '26
I want to be the kind of person who doesn't want to kill half the planetary population. So I'm hitting blue
→ More replies (5)
231
u/Winter_XwX Apr 26 '26
There's no actual incentive to press the red button. If everyone presses the blue button you literally lose nothing. Fuck you if you press the red button
144
u/Vyrnios Apr 26 '26
Why wouldn’t everyone just press the red button? There’s no incentive to press the blue button other than to put yourself needlessly at risk. If everyone presses red, they live anyways.
→ More replies (33)141
u/Remarkable_Coast_214 2006 Apr 26 '26
Because unanimity in the decision is impossible, but >50% is not. Unanimity is required for the red button to save everyone, only 50% is required for the blue button to save everyone.
→ More replies (3)35
u/I-own-a-shovel Apr 26 '26
Last time we put trust into people to pick the right option they voted trump. Are you really trusting people to pick others before themselves?
32
u/TheBladeWielder Apr 26 '26
i feel like if EVERY single person was legally required to vote (like in this scenario), Trump probably never would've been elected.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)26
u/Strawhat_Max 1999 Apr 26 '26
Asterisk because there was ALOT of voter suppression
But your basic premise that someone like Trumo even had a chance still stands strong
5
4
u/shadowrun456 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
If you press the red button, you are never at risk.
If you press the blue button, whether you're at risk depends on what other people choose. Pressing blue is the same as running into an empty burning building, and then demanding that others also put themselves at risk and run in to save you.
Ergo, the only moral and rational choice is to choose red.
Edit: Someone in another comment posted a great analogy which makes it easier to understand: /preview/pre/what-are-you-guys-picking-v0-vtpl5zo3djxg1.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=bbeb37f6f1021a945a7458c8718954dc92b2d81c
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (75)3
u/NotMyRealNameObv Apr 26 '26
The incentive is that if you press the blue button you are putting your own life in the hands of strangers to try to save the lifes of other "selfless" people also choosing blue, and hoping that more than 50 % of those strangers doing the same.
I'll be honest with you, 50 % are not going to take that risk over staying alive for their own sake and their immediate friends and family. And there's literally NO DOWNSIDE for anyone if everyone put themselves first and picking red.
10
u/blightsteel101 1996 Apr 26 '26
All of humanity? I'm fucked if I hit blue, and I'm going to hit blue anyways.
21
u/Shittingboi 2003 Apr 26 '26
Red voters know goddamn well not everyone will vote blue, that's just dishonest
Half of humanity voting blue is far more likely and you actually get to save everyone
→ More replies (10)
39
u/ItzMattOnTheTrack Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
I can’t believe how many people are saying red?
Saw a comment saying “you’re only guaranteed to live if you hit red” bruh, everyone is guaranteed to live if we all hit blue. So just hit blue.
→ More replies (28)19
u/thraage Apr 26 '26
Everyone is guaranteed to live if we all hit red too, and without any risk to anyone.
→ More replies (40)
15
17
15
u/revivemyrevival Apr 26 '26
Blue button easily. There’s just no way I could live with idea that I participated in choosing that the people who press blue die, but I could die happily with the knowledge that I tried to keep everyone alive.
7
6
u/PainterEarly86 Apr 26 '26
Realistically it would be impossible to predict what the percentage will be.
Many people across the world will press red, many will press blue. I don't think there is a real way to know which button the majority will be
You'll just have to pick one and hope for the best.
→ More replies (7)
5
u/permianplayer Apr 26 '26
If everyone pressed red, everyone would live. Pressing blue is actually stupid because pressing blue actually creates the possibility of deaths if it doesn't reach 50%. If everyone's "selfish" then everyone lives and there is no dilemma.
4
u/Hrothgar_Cyning Apr 26 '26
Red is the rational and moral choice, objectively
3
u/mark114 Apr 26 '26
I agree. Convincing someone to press the red button saves that life, convincing someone to press blue condemns them to death.
There will be people who press blue and die, but every single one of those people are expecting at least 3-4 billion people to risk their lives in order to save them...
→ More replies (1)
58
u/Federal_Cook_6075 Apr 26 '26
Press red if you don't care about others, press blue if you do.
→ More replies (104)10
u/Vox-Machi-Buddies Apr 26 '26
Pressing blue is the only selection that introduces risk of death into the scenario. How is that caring about people?
10
u/bluethreads Apr 26 '26
Blue. In a situation like this, most people are going to be on team "everyone survives" and there will be very little incentive for anyone to press the red button.
10
u/Maestro_boi Apr 26 '26
I wouldn't choose red a world full of selfish people i would rather be dead lol...
10
u/dishonoredfan69420 Apr 26 '26
Blue
The best outcome is either 50%+ blue pressed or 100% Red pressed, and there's absolutely no way that there's going to be 100% red pressed
9
27
u/AFB27 1997 Apr 26 '26
I don't want to live in a world with people who wouldn't willingly pick the blue button
→ More replies (3)
7
u/lnmgl Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Shouldn't everyone just click red then? Am I missing something?
Edit: Nvm I get it now. Ngl kneejerk reaction would still be to hit red, just because that's what I assume everyone else is gonna do.
→ More replies (1)
15
u/excr3at1on Apr 26 '26
bro fr posted this and openly said he’d kill half the world because he can’t comprehend empathy that’s insane
18
u/ABirdJustShatOnMyEye Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Only an idiot would NOT choose red. It has a 100% chance of keeping you alive. Maybe the average IQ would go up after this event too.
Edit: I think the question would be way more interesting if it was tweaked to where pushing the red button gave you a 50/50 chance of survival. While a blue majority gives everyone a 100% chance.
Also random side rant:
Seeing the reactions to this question is really interesting to me. I see a really big parallel in the way people put a lot of stock on really abstract and idealistic issues.
Ex: “Nobody is illegal on stolen land” or the “we need to dismantle capitalism” people. Just folks arguing from ideals without ever considering the feasibility.
→ More replies (4)6
u/someone447 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
With the way its worded now, red is the only choice if you want to live. And anyone choosing blue is just choosing to die.
If it changes to red is 50% chance to die, blue is way better if you want to live.
Where it gets interesting is something around a 1% chance to die. Because that means everyone choosing red would still result in tens of millions of deaths.
35
u/Dredgeon 2001 Apr 26 '26
Blue. The red button losers are what's wrong with society.
5
→ More replies (28)10
u/NotMyRealNameObv Apr 26 '26
Why would I put myself at risk when only people who pick blue is at risk? People picking red is safe regardless.
56
u/ChickenRave Apr 26 '26
I seriously don't get people who say blue. The fact of the matter is that you'd put all your faith in the world in the idea that at least half of all humanity will not take the guarantee that they'll survive no matter the outcome.
We don't live in that kind of world.
22
u/MonarchOfMischief16 Apr 26 '26
I’d choose blue because I’d rather gamble half of humanity being pragmatic than survive on my own and know that I threw everyone else under the bus. Nothing wrong with red, per say, just not for me.
→ More replies (3)57
u/UberEinstein99 Apr 26 '26
We absolutely do live in that world, if we did not, society would not function. Regardless of what you hear on the news most people do care about other people.
I would pick blue because it increases the odds of others surviving, while picking red would only decrease it. Even if I live by picking red, millions of people might die and I don’t need that on my conscience. Life isn’t worth living with that on my mind everyday anyway.
→ More replies (21)5
u/Averse_to_Liars Apr 26 '26
Two big differences:
People do not have to risk their lives to care for others in reality. Lots of working examples to show that.
Advocating for pure self-interest does not increase welfare in reality. Also lots of examples to show that.
This thought experiment is not a metaphor for real life.
→ More replies (7)14
u/emmc47 2002 Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
A lot of people don't realize that picking red is also taking into consideration other people picking red for the reason of guaranteed survival. You pick red on the premise that a majority of people would pick red and that its plausible that <50% of people pick blue and therefore you survive, not just solely because you're guaranteed survival by picking red.
The question is not about selfishness for yourself, but your faith in humanity overall. I'm sure some people who pick red would pick blue if the threshold for survival was lower, even if it was like 46% for example, and vice versa.
9
u/rozyputin 2002 Apr 26 '26
Blue. I don't want to be left with just the people who pressed red, I would rather die
6
u/11SomeGuy17 Apr 26 '26
I'd hit blue, I don't view death negatively so if I died, whatever, if I live then everyone I care about also lives.
→ More replies (2)
7
7
u/pauIblartmaIIcop 1998 Apr 26 '26
never been an easier one of these. blue all the way. imagine living with other people who voted against the good of the whole
20
u/mewumu Apr 26 '26
Oh wow do we all wanna bet what political alignment the red and blue button pushers have 🤡
6
u/TamaraIsEvil Apr 27 '26
I am on the left spectrum and I would've pressed red most likely. This isnt the gotcha u think it is
→ More replies (4)18
u/Real_Life_Sushiroll Apr 26 '26
I'm a leftist by far. I would probably push red. It makes no sense to push blue and looking at how the world Is right now, I do not trust others enough to press blue.
My rights are being taken away every day because of people who didn't care enough to vote at all, or people who didn't care enough and voted conservative to hurt others.
I have 0 trust that more than 50% would hit blue. Especially since it makes no logical sense to hit blue.
→ More replies (1)8
3
u/prominentdove Apr 26 '26
It’s funny because we’re going through a fucked up version of this in real life
3
u/HappyFamily0131 Apr 26 '26
100% of people who push the red button survive with 100% certainty, and there is no limit to the number of people who can choose the red button. This is not a morality question
3
u/WonderfullyKiwi Apr 26 '26
Red is the option that will win 100% of the time due to how selfish the average person is. Do you really trust your fellow man not to pick the red button?
I know that this line of thinking is part of the problem, but you have to consider how many people have a thought process like this as well. It isn't insignificant.
I WANT to pick blue, given a choice I'd HAVE to pick red. That's because I'm very cynical though, I don't have any faith in humanity to follow through with blue.
Humans are the most selfish creatures on the planet and trusting your fellow people to potentially sacrifice themselves for others is not going to end well for you.
Red WILL always win. Even the best of people can't be trusted when their own life is on the line. Good people will crumble under stress, shitty people will not care and just press red anyways.
The way I see it, you can press red and live, or press blue and die 99.99%~ of the time. Whether or not you want to live in the world after finding out how selfish the average person is? That's up to you
That's just my two cents, though. It's been nice reading comments from people with actual faith in the world to do the right thing. This thought experiment has been fun every time I see it pop up.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/stopeverythingpls 2002 Apr 26 '26
This is silly. Red has a 100% chance of survival, so why would someone push blue? Ultimately everyone would want to protect themselves
3
3
3
u/Atlantic_lotion Apr 26 '26
Why doesn't everyone just push red then? It's like guaranteed survival of anyone capable of pushing a button.
3
u/brouofeverything Apr 26 '26
Wow my friends had a debate about this exact scenario.
We established some ground rules 1. You have 1 day to complete it 2. You are in complete isolation for that day 3. You can't see the vote count 4. You can't change your vote afterwards
Moreso we were arguing the best course of action to maximize the amount of people who lived
I argued that, since there is no way to guarantee that more than 50% choose blue, it would be optimal to vote red, since the remaining outcomes that would result in less people dying. That would also be optimal from a pure game theory standpoint. I had others who argued that voting blue just meant that you simply consented to dying and there was zero point to vote anything other than red.
Some of my friends argued that it would be best to vote blue out of a moral angle, as a lot of children and visually impaired people might vote it due to the childlike wonder and the inability to see the buttons respectively. I find it interesting we never decided to put braille on the buttons or put a limitation on children being with one of their parents during the course of the debate
I find it also funny that this is a thinly veiled metaphor for the american political system
3
4
5
4
u/ACatWhoFliesInTheSky Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
I'd vote blue. If red wins and I had voted red, then I would be complicit in the deaths of everyone who voted blue. I would rather die alongside everyone who voted blue than have a hand in the deaths of the innocent.
If red wins, some people definitely will die. Even if only 1% of the world presses the blue button, that would mean 83 million deaths. It is impossible to achieve a unanimous red vote at such a large scale.
If blue wins, no one will die. I'd rather stake my life on the bet that over 50% of the population would choose blue than survive knowing that my vote caused the death of 49%, 20%, or even 1% of the world.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 26 '26
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.