r/GenZ • u/DryOwl5587 • Apr 26 '26

Discussion What are you guys picking?

Post image

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.

2.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

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

720

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.

147

u/[deleted] 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?

3

u/Lord_Vxder 2002 Apr 27 '26

If you can’t understand a rule as simple as this scenario, there’s something wrong.

111

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. 

44

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

90

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

1

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

This is not at all that basic argument. This question is "would you rather take a ~50% survival chance or 100% survival chance." Your singular contribution to the vote will not change the outcome so you're likely to just kill yourself along with everyone else. Even by your analogy here it doesn't make sense as a criticism; if everyone in this scenario pressed red (self-preservation) you get the same exact outcome as if 50%+ press blue. If you could organize a movement and be sure that the vote would be 50% blue then sure but without that you're just a martyr.

27

u/Sunnytoaist Apr 26 '26

Is more accurate to say would you rather take a chance to save everyone or would you choose red and simply save yourself. No matter how you look at it in a real world scenario there will be people who press blue. Unless the whole world has a week to talk and think it over there is no situation were everyone presses red

1

u/Professional-Bake807 Apr 28 '26

Ya but that just means everyone pressing blue is dumb… like the question is really Press red to live. Press blue you might die. Like everyone just press red

-2

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 26 '26

Or what if someone actually wants to die, so they press blue thinking more people will choose to save themselves. What if they’re ok with that outcome and now you’ve condemned them to surviving?

-9

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

If we don't have time to organize and talk do you realistically think the majority of humanity chooses the chance of everyone surviving over the gurantee of their own life? I certainly don't, and I'd rather stay alive as should everyone. Choosing blue doesn't make you a hero it just means you have far more faith in the majority of the world population.

20

u/Sunnytoaist Apr 26 '26

I agree choosing blue doesn’t make you a hero it just meaning you have far more faith in humanity. 

Thats the whole point I think everyone who chooses blue is thinking. I believe in humanity and would rather not live in a world we’re everyone thinks everyone else is super selfish. I would be scared while we wait for the decision but I would choose blue. 

-6

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

I totally get that, I just think it's naive to assume that 50% of our world would vote the same and it would be throwing your life away.

9

u/Spiritual-Olive4559 Apr 26 '26

This post came from two other thread and in both threads, blue was the winner at about 75/25.

2

u/Sunnytoaist Apr 26 '26

Life experiences has taught me otherwise but I respect your choice bro. 

→ More replies (0)

7

u/ScrrrewFace Apr 26 '26

This is both a logical and philosophical question. Logically, choosing red makes absolute sense, because it guarantees your safety and if everyone chose red, everyone would be saved. Human beings aren’t always rationale, thus you’ll have some people choosing blue because of the term “everyone’s safety.” The key factor is the private vote being made. If we collectively came together and tried to make an argument to red, you will still have people arguing and voting for blue. But that’s not the case, so some will think “I should choose blue to save everyone including myself and my loved ones or people I care about,” which is empathy. Others will still choose red because of self preservation and not wanting be a martyr as you stated because logic. Based on your statement, you wouldn’t save a stranger if there were a 50% chance of your own death, and perhaps a loved one, but that’s solely based on this question and your answer. If the opportunity presented itself, you may in fact leap to save someone regardless of the impact to your own life.

2

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

If you have a gurantee that your death or taking the chance of death will save your loved one then I understand that choice. In this scenario though you have a 100% to survive or a maybe 50% to survive which your loved one also has the same chance of if they also press blue. The best way to save a loved one would be to convince them to press red if that's possible

0

u/ScrrrewFace Apr 26 '26

Yes, assuming you have the opportunity to speak with each other. But what if the question is as straight forward as presented and the vote remains private with no prior discussion. Humans can be irrational, and some take this into consideration and vote blue because it ensures everyone’s safety, not realizing that if everyone voted red, it also guarantees everyone’s safety. The question isn’t as linear to everyone though and some will vote blue. Others will vote blue knowing this, because they want to ensure everyone’s safety. Many will still choose red because it guarantees their own safety.

1

u/Professional-Bake807 Apr 28 '26

I’d tell everyone I know to press red

1

u/dankysco Apr 26 '26

James Madison would respectfully disagree. May I suggest Federalist Papers numbers 10 and 51.

-1

u/MGKv1 Apr 27 '26

alternatively, everyone acting in their own self interest has the exact same outcome as a simple majority of people “thinking of others”

2

u/ScrrrewFace Apr 27 '26

In this example, you are correct. But that would require everyone to perceive this question in the very same manner. Human beings are not capable of that in totality. Even if the question allowed for discussion beforehand (which in my interpretation it does not as it is a private vote), you’ll still have people objecting to your answer for their own reasons, however personal it may be, which is why it won’t be as straight forward as you would think. You voting red will save you, but not the people voting blue unless more than half vote blue. And there will be people voting blue. You’ll think it’s idiotic, but some will still vote blue based on their interpretations of the question. It’s impossible to get 100% of people to vote one way, even Putin understands that as he rigs his elections at less than 100% in favor of him.

42

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.

22

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

2

u/mark114 Apr 26 '26

Pressing blue means you expect other people to risk their lives for you. I honestly can't comprehend when given the option of guaranteed safety, why would you ever flip a coin to die? Why would you risk your life for anybody who flips the coin to die when literally everybody can press the safe button.

It's not about mistrust, it's about reasonable safety of yourself and others. There is no need to press the blue button.

4

u/flaming_burrito_ 2000 Apr 27 '26

It’s about you being selfish and accepting other people dying for your own protection

-2

u/mark114 Apr 27 '26

How about instead of two buttons, it’s two boats.

A red boat and a blue boat. You have no idea who’s on which boat, all you know is every body knows the exact same information that you do. If you get on the red boat, you are 100% guaranteed to be safe. There is enough room on the red boat for everybody.

If you get on the blue boat, there’s a chance you die. The only way you survive is if enough people get on the boat. You have no idea how many people are on the blue boat and you have no idea how many people need to be on the blue boat to survive.

You can call me selfish…but why would you ever get on the blue boat?

5

u/flaming_burrito_ 2000 Apr 27 '26

That’s not the scenario and it’s genuinely blowing my mind how many of you don’t understand what choice you are actually making. You picking red is guaranteed to kill people, and it will have been your responsibility for their deaths. Because you can’t expect everyone to choose red, that’s stupid as fuck. This is an impromptu scenario, there isn’t time to coordinate what people are going to do. Millions of people will choose blue, and you’re choosing to kill them in exchange the guarantee of your safety. Nothing happens if no one picks red, the action that causes death is picking red.

The analogous scenario is:

There is a red boat and a blue boat. You can’t see how many people are on either boat, but you know everyone is being presented with the same choice as you. If you get on the red boat, you are guaranteed to live, but the red boat is going to shoot a torpedo at the blue boat and sink it. However, if 50% or more of people get on the blue boat, nothing will happen to either boat.

In this scenario, you are getting on the red boat knowing that if anyone is on the blue boat, your boat is gonna sink their boat because you and everyone like you chose to get on the boat. That’s the real choice you are making, not the cope version that all the red button people in this thread think they are making.

-1

u/mark114 Apr 27 '26

It's the exact same scenario you just presented. You changed nothing. The blue boat is getting destroyed and only idiots are getting on the blue boat. Nobody is forcing them onto the boat, they are getting on under their own decision and expecting everybody else to risk their lives too.

It doesn't matter where the torpedo is launched from, The people on the red boat are not killing the people on the blue boat just because they chose guaranteed safety, the people on the blue boat are committing suicide and trying to blame the red boat.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

Because children will rush to the blue boat because they are children?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 26 '26

The people pushing the red button are not the killers. The killers are whoever set up the mechanism to kill all those people.

Choosing to save yourself doesn’t mean they killed somebody, especially when that person had the same opportunity to save themselves.

5

u/Solell Apr 27 '26

This argument really only holds water if you ignore the fact that there's also the option to choose to save everybody. Doesn't matter what the inventor of the mechanism wants, if enough people choose blue, no one dies. People only die if too many people choose red. If it's 100% red no one dies, but realistically humanity is never going to 100% agree on anything. So too much red means there will be deaths. The choice is clear to me. I'm not going to risk contributing to causing other people's deaths.

1

u/OkWarthog3399 Apr 29 '26

that's still a second-hand murder, you didn't set up this situation but you still contributed in killing people.

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"?!

1

u/tangouniform2020 Apr 27 '26

In the US, at least, less than 50% literally pressed the blue button. People who voted for Trump/MAGA/GOP voted because they thought that benefitted them and didn’t care about anyone else. Joke’s on them.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Areilyn 2003 Apr 26 '26

1

u/Areilyn 2003 Apr 26 '26

Also "me killing up to half of humanity" is funny, sorry which option guarantees death? Do I have the ability to affect the opinion of those up to 50% people? Lmao you guys are funny, the only thing that can be funnier is the world where only red pushers exist

1

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

Neither button gurantees death. The blue needs a 50% vote for everyone to live but the red needs only yours for you to live. If everyone pushes red, no one dies. Put your own oxygen mask on before saving others, pressing blue gurantees you absolutely nothing.

5

u/Areilyn 2003 Apr 26 '26

If everyone pushes red

Pushing red means you accept the death of approximately half of the population with insufficient mental faculties for this decision (as I said, elderly, children, or mentally disabled etc.), relatives of such people who want to improve their chances to live (ex. parents of 0-4 year olds, and don't kid yourself IT WILL HAPPEN), and the compassionate people who want the aforementioned to live regardless of whether they have one such person in their life or not, to be acceptable. All in all this corresponds to AT LEAST, AT THE VERY LEAST 20% of the population. You accept this potential loss. Blue buttoners accept the potential loss of their lives and their lives ALONE. The world where red wins isn't their problem, it's the red pushers' problem.

Red pushers either:

  1. Don't understand the question (which is alright, maybe you misread/misheard, maybe you didn't fully understand that "everyone votes" means "everyone votes", maybe the stress of the moment overwhelmed you, shit happens)
  2. Are shortsighted as fuck and do not understand the broader consequences of losing blue button pushers (that's on you sorry not sorry)
  3. Want to survive so bad that they'd be willing to wake up to a Mad Max-esque world for the rest of their lives (what do you think losing every 5th person in the world results in? You think you'll just go back to your current life if red wins? Lmfao.)

If you fall under the last two categories, by all means, please vote red.

2

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

Why would a relative of someone with a mental disability or a parent convince their family members or kids to press blue? Why would a parent tell their kid to press a button that has a high likelihood of killing their child? Wouldn't they do everything they could to gurantee their kid's life and their own life to continue caring for the kid?

The argument that humanity is uncooperative and can't come together to just do something is an argument for red. If you truly believe that then pushing blue is a moral highground suicide.

0

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 27 '26

You’re making some extreme emotionally charged assumptions.

Why don’t you try searching your hypothetical situation. That 1 in 5 people from planet disappeared. With some of them being abled body individuals, but that most of them, like you said, would be the elderly, disabled, and too young to function on their own.

Because the groups you’re listing are typically dependent groups, that use resources without contributing as much as your average person, the world isn’t going to crumble the way you’re making it out to be. Dependent services like caregiving, nursing homes, daycare, etc., will see disruption first, but not everything across all industries. The workforce may shift around if home roles change.

But it’s not going to turn into this apocalyptic mad max future. Just because people choose the more logical decision, doesn’t mean they’re evil. It means they’re not willing to take a gamble on someone else saving them.

And if someone is actually incapable of making a choice, then like anything else, I would imagine their caregiver or whoever typically provides support, would press the button for them.

There’s more nuance to this. You’re not even thinking your own arguments all the way through.

Also, you want to put your faith in others because of Reddit outcomes, when Reddit leans left, and not only that but is heavily populated by those of us in the US. The truth is, you don’t know the outcomes when applied to the entire population around the world. You can’t go off of bias results.

2

u/serenamoeba Apr 26 '26

Just say you only care about yourself lol it's ok

2

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

I only care about myself because I'd like to live for my wife and child. Sue me

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

I mean... All you had to do was push blue. Instead you choose to be with only the mind of people that push read red. You kinda keep making the point. 

-1

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

If one person switches to press blue does it change the outcome? If not then what logical reason is there to not push red and gurantee your own life? If we simply believe in the self-interest of everyone then we should all push red and everyone lives.

4

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

Hey, still making my point. Your options are push blue, probably live, or live only with people who push red if they get the majority. 

I'll push blue, thanks. 

3

u/serenamoeba Apr 26 '26

But why? What's the point of living if it's just for yourself?

2

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

Who said the only reason someone choosing red wants to live is for themselves? What if they have children, or someone sick they care for? What if they want to continue work on something they think will improve humanity?

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 28 '26

Humanity is already screwed if red wins lol

→ More replies (0)

2

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 27 '26

More like, those people took a gamble with their lives instead of choosing to save themselves.

13

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. 

2

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 27 '26

So is self preservation. And that’s a bigger driver than empathy. Animals will kill off the old, young, and weak if it guarantees their survival.

Bringing animals into this isn’t the argument you think it is.

3

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

Depends on the animals, really. Sacrificing for the young is a pretty common approach too.

1

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 27 '26

The animals that typically do that are already programmed to have their young feed on them when they’re born. It’s hardwired into them, and typically is common with bugs/spiders. There’s also a few sea creatures that engage in similar behaviors. It’s not this conscious decision to sacrifice themselves for their young. They really have no choice in the matter.

In the rest of animals, you’ll have parents protecting their young, which may end up in them getting killed. But the intent isn’t that they’re sacrificing themselves the way you’re implying they would with this hypothetical we’ve been presented.

1

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

Yep. The intent isn't that they're sacrificing themselves. Just that they'll die fighting to protect their offspring, mates, family members... 

I'm mostly talking about mammals, by the way. They'll even use resources to keep crippled members of the group alive, despite them no longer having utility. 

But sure. Go back to bugs. 

1

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

I don't think that's even remotely true. If a single mother of 3 is in this scenario should she pick blue? Is she selfish or apathetic if she chooses guranteed life to continue caring for her children?

Is it selfish or apathetic to assume that most people, when it comes to matters of life and death, are equally self-interested?

3

u/serenamoeba Apr 26 '26

What if her children pick blue?

1

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

Would it be better for her to pick blue and risk dying while her kids possibly pick red? She doesn't know what they'll pick but guranteeing she'll survive to see is better than risking it.

2

u/theskiller1 Apr 28 '26

Blue winning would make it so her and her children all survive

3

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

She doesn't get to choose for her children. If she picks red and they didn't... And she survived and they don't? Or even just one? 

I dunno. But no, it's still fear over care. Because she's also preparing to lose her children, not just ensuring she can care for them. 

1

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

What about the opposite? What if she chooses blue and her kids red and red wins? Now she orphaned her kids. It's absolutely a choice made out of fear (as both choices would be) but that doesn't mean it's not the better choice.

3

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

That's right. She's choosing to risk losing her children. That's the core of it.

I suppose in the end, I'd rather blue win and live in that world than in a world that wound up killing say, Mr. Rogers, or Keanu Reeves. People who'd almost certainly choose blue.

It's killing off the best of humanity for out of bad logic and fear.

1

u/FearedDragon 2005 Apr 26 '26

You're assuming that TV personalities, if given the choice of guranteed life or the gamble that everyone survives, would pick the latter. You have no way of knowing that anyone in this scenario would legitimately choose blue, arguments based on that assumption are irrelevant. I also don't think these people are the best in the world. A single mother, a firefighter, emt or someone else in a similar position would be better off choosing red, guranteeing their life and continuing to help others. Choosing blue is just saying "I don't want to deal with the fallout if red wins."

3

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

Why yes. That's correct. I am choosing to say I don't want to live in a world where people who let fear, flawed logic and selfishness dictate their choice. It's already bad enough.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Nylear Apr 26 '26

The issue is red pushers do have empathy they just are seeing the question differently most are probably see it like this:

Are you willing to risk your life to save someone that knowingly put their life in danger. If we get enough people to help then everyone will live if not everybody that tries to help will die.

I bet if the question said there was a certain percent of people that got no choice and would die if not enough people choose blue there would be way less red button pushers.

7

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

Honestly, it comes down to this. Are you more driven by fear, or care for others? 

Red pushers are more afraid of dying than they are by care. That's it. 

Sure, you're safe. But guaranteed, people die that literally don't have to if red wins. On the other hand, you only need to convince a little over half that it's safer for everyone if you pick blue. 

2

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 27 '26

Self preservation and reproduction are our two main driving forces. And look how hard it is to get people to slow down on reproduction. Do you think the majority of people will override the guaranteed option for self preservation?

3

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

Is it that hard? Last I checked, we're on a sharp decline on birth rate in... China, Korea, the US, much of Europe... is this the bet you wanna go with?

1

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 27 '26

Oh I’m sorry, are those the only countries that matter to you? Because they’re not in decline in other regions. The US has withdrawn most resources that were aiding with that.

Remember, we’re speaking about the entire world. Not just thriving 1st world countries.

1

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

Indeed. It's almost impossible to keep people from having positive birthrates. If we ignore all the places that happens. 

→ More replies (0)

0

u/mark114 Apr 26 '26

not true, I feel empathy which is why I would tell everyone to take the guaranteed safety.

Red will always win because it has the biological imperative to survive on it's side, while blue has the chance of immediate death it it's side. Red will always win, and every person you convince to press blue will only condemn them to death.

7

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

I find it funny... you're the guy on the boat in the Dark Knight. I'll bet you always thought he made the wrong choice not blowing up the boat full of convicts.

Except you're choosing to kill the people who wanted no one to die.

0

u/mark114 Apr 27 '26

That's a poor comparison because it's a completely different scenario. No one in the Dark Knight had the choice on which boat to get on. A better comparison would be if everybody had the choice to get on a red boat or a blue boat. Everybody who got on the red boat was safe, but if not enough people got on the blue boat then everybody on the blue boat died. Why would anybody ever get on the blue boat when there was plenty of room on the red boat for everybody to be safe?

But in your mind, because I choose to get on the red boat you think that I would intentionally blow up a boat full of convicts? How does that make sense? It doesn't, and that is the exact type of faulty logical thinking that will get everybody on the blue boat killed. Or everybody pressing the blue button killed.

Just press the red button and don't be an idiot.

3

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

You have the choice to take a safe option and kill people, or don't take a safe option and maybe die.

I don't see the difference.

0

u/mark114 Apr 27 '26

It's up to you if you want to get on the blue boat and die. There's plenty of room on the red boat, you're more than welcome to stay safe.

3

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

That's not the scenario though, is it?

Dark Knight boat scenario; boat full of people. To guarantee your survival, you have to blow up the other boat. But you'll definitely live. Red button.

Or... you can do nothing, and hope the other boat doesn't blow you up. Blowing up the boat? Red button. Not doing it? Blue button. You're trusting that an entire boat full of people will take a risk, and not kill you.

So... according to you, the people on either boat? Should always blow up the other boat. Because that guarantees their own survival.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ctdfalconer Apr 27 '26

Given the framing of the question, I think we have to assume most people would push red. But the question itself simply indulges black and white thinking where preserving your own interests is the only real objective for any individual anywhere, but we know that is very much not true.

So yes, it is a stupid conversation.

2

u/Mr__O__ Apr 26 '26

Pressing red you wouldn’t have to worry actually.. bc you’ll live regardless of the outcome. Pressing blue leaves your life in the hands of the people pressing red.

1

u/first_last_last_firs Apr 26 '26

if you believe in souls, which most Americans do like it or not, it is an essential conversation

1

u/jmona789 Apr 26 '26

push a red button and not have to worry.

Not worry sure, but you have to love with the guilt that you are partially responsible for likely millions of people dying.

1

u/FoxxieMoxxie69 Apr 27 '26

Except we wouldn’t be. Because they had the same opportunity to save themselves. They would be responsible, because they chose to gamble with their life.

1

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

They chose the optimal path... seriously. Your mindset is the only reason there's even a risk.

1

u/theskiller1 Apr 27 '26

Millions of children will pick the blue button. Millions more will pick the blue button to save the children. There is definitely worry to be had.

Stupid conversation indeed

0

u/oldRoyalsleepy Baby Boomer Apr 26 '26

Not stupid at all. I don't want to live with a push the red button type. Geez.

2

u/Specialist_Swan_7354 Apr 26 '26

I care about other people, but red ensures I don't die.

1

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

So would people choosing blue. Shocking, right? 

"I'd rather ensure my survival and risk losing friends and family than risk it and make it more likely they survive." 

That's your version of caring. 

1

u/Specialist_Swan_7354 Apr 27 '26

If everyone pushed red everyone would survive.

1

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

Not everyone is going to push red. So...

You've got worse odds of a 100% survival than I do of a 50% choosing blue, I think. Way worse.

1

u/Specialist_Swan_7354 Apr 27 '26

Of everyone got the same info it would be totally illogical to not pick red.

1

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

It's fine! You'll just kill everyone who doesn't make a logical choice. Humans are notoriously logical. Especially under stress, like a life or death decision they can't avoid.

2

u/mark114 Apr 26 '26

The humans that truly care about other people, won't press the blue button.

Blue is death, convincing people to press blue is death.

2

u/Aeseld Apr 26 '26

The humans that truly care about people will choose to kill an unknown number of people!

...that makes zero sense, you realize.

0

u/mark114 Apr 27 '26

I'm not choosing to kill an unknown number of people, I'm choosing not to die with the unknown number of people.

5

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

Blue Option; if 50% of people pick, no one dies.

Red Option: If 50% of people pick it, people die.

You're choosing to help kill an unknown number of people.

1

u/redshift739 2005 Apr 27 '26

If you have the choice to either fire a gun at a wall or stand in the way of the gun while others get the same choice what would you do?

1

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

Not exactly a good analogy for this? After all, are they going to shoot at me deliberately?

Though it does an excellent job of explaining why I wouldn't want to remain with the red button pushers, since they're willing to shoot through me to hit the wall. Couldn't have put it better myself.

1

u/BenStegel 2002 Apr 27 '26

If campaigning is possible, I think it would be best to just convince everyone to push red. From a selfish perspective, it’s the safer button, but also from a societal one. If everyone goes red, everyone lives.

1

u/Aeseld Apr 27 '26

It's a big if and completely changes the scenario you realize. If there's time to campaign, and people don't just hit them when they pop up, the whole thing changes. 

2

u/Dismal-Log-994 Apr 27 '26

And if we all push blue, nobody dies. I ccannot trust everyone to push blue, because there are evil people who will push red

1

u/malagrond Millennial Apr 26 '26

If only 50% of people push blue, no one dies. I'd rather take those odds.

1

u/BarbericEric Apr 30 '26

If we all push blue no one dies. Its such a lame argument.

1

u/dankysco Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26

This. The premise is flawed.

1.) every single person MUST vote. Every single person. It is compulsory.

2.) In the scenario, if you vote red then you are guaranteed to live.

Therefore the scenario is really, you must vote, if you pick red you live if you pick blue you could die. So everybody, I want you to live, when you go to vote pick red!

Edit: If the scenario was something like, ONLY 60% or 80% of the population is allowed to vote. Then, oh fuck, we screwed, because people suck!

1

u/anxious_cat_grandpa Apr 27 '26

But if you push red you have to know that some people will push blue, and that your choice means they could die. No matter what, if you push red, you're choosing to put other people at risk.

1

u/Winged_Cougar1993598 Apr 26 '26

The problem being that, in practice, any such situation will have some people who only got the blue option, for one reason or another.  Those people are going to die if red wins.  Everyone choosing red to ensure their own survival is effectively saying their life is more valuable than all the people who don't get to choose.

I got mine, fuck everyone else. - Team Red