Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing red or blue
twitter.comI don't get how so many people say pressing red is the right choice. Yes, if everyone presses red then nobody dies, but the same is true if everyone presses blue. But if almost everyone presses red, a lot of people die, and if almost everyone presses blue still nothing happens.
It would be funny if nobody dies but this was just a test if you are capable of large scale coordination - and everybody who presses red just looses their vote in society.
The simplest answer is: are you willing to bet your life on the fact that 50% of people on earth won't press red? For one reason or another, the reason they press red doesn't matter. For you, pressing red is safe, you risk nothing. Pressing blue is Russian roulette.
If red wins, I don't want to be on earth with the people who were okay with killing 50.1% of earth - hence I will vote blue.
It seems like a simplified prisoners’ dilemma: it’s missing the negative weight if everybody presses red.
I tthink that's the point
Should be clear that, when faced with a power capable of doing this, humanity should cooperate to entirely choose red.
Becomes more interesting if, whatever the outcome, choosing red somehow removes the ability to perform manual labor.
Big related discussion (posted a few hours later) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47912065
Ironic that despite the poll leaning blue, the replies to that post are full of people being as provocative and cynical as they can be, cheering on the death of everyone who didn't vote like them and smugly flailing around their perceived 'superior intellect'. It seems that for many people, voting red isn't just about protecting yourself at all costs, but wishing to kill the others.
We only know that people vote (slightly) blue in an inconsequential twitter poll. I think it's likely in a real scenario like this red would win.
I want to press the blue button but I also want those who pressed the red button to die :).
Some people that pick red might just think that everyone will pick red. Then everyone survives. In a way it could reflect a positive view of humanity. Plus they wouldn't die. You'd need to pick red to make sure you're still alive to kill them all.
> Some people that pick red might just think that everyone will pick red.
Yes, isn't that always the excuse? "The others are bad so I'm justified in being bad".
But seriously, I am way more uncertain than I first thought. Basically the only reason to choose blue is because you know that a lot of people will do it, so that in order to save their life you choose to put yours at risk.
Since anyone pressing red is safe everybody should press red. Then everyone is safe.
Why would I not press red?
Blue is just like red, but without the death. It's red premium. Why wouldn't you press blue?
Why would I risk death? Why would anyone? Everyone just needs to press red
You'd have to factor in what percentage of people don't understand that if everyone picks red they all live. What percentage of people think that amount is more than zero, then what percentage of those people are willing to take the risk to save those people. Then what percentage of people are willing to take the risk to save the people that took the risk. And so on. Then if you care enough to take the risk yourself.
For me, the moral question is, why would I risk killing anyone? Even if I'm only one finger of many pulling the trigger, I don't want a part in it.
Why would you risk killing anyone? To save yourself; while knowing that your decision doesn't preclude any/everyone from saving themselves, and no one dying. Maybe you'd be the only person that chooses blue if it was a real scenario and each voters life was really on the line. Everyone saves themselves and everyone lives. Not saying it's the right or wrong choice.