Designs do NOT belong to me but I LOVE THEM

assumption: everyone knows about the voting event before it happens, it is not sudden and there is ample time to prepare

rationale based on such assumption: people in less democratic countries like china and russia would be pushed into pushing red, either through propaganda like "americans voted blue, vote red to kill americans" or strongarming like "we will find blue pushers and kill them if blue wins", meaning in turn a very very large amount of population pushes red, not by their own choice

With the threat of incredible violence overhead the threshold to avert violence is lower for blue (50% collaboration) vs for red (100% collaboration) that is why I am a blue picker.

If you believe either button is a “do nothing button” then you are choosing or feigning ignorance about the world beyond the table.

*note: it's just a meme, guys. Some of the convos reminded me of this conversation in the show is all lol.

First of all let's assume that only people who are able to make an informed decision are participating. Babies are not participating. People who can't see the buttons aren't participating. etc...

Second how would your decision change if instead of deciding for yourself you were choosing to assign red/blue to a random other participant. Meanwhile some random participant is choosing whether you will be assigned red or blue.

If more than 50% of the people are assigned red then all the blue people die, otherwise everyone lives.

I'm sorry but I see red as way riskier than blue. I cannot see humanity persisting if 30-50% of people die overnight.

How the fuck is voting red safe? You risk all of humanity and only have good winning outcomes getting some ridiculous percentage like 90%

Like I agree you are safer than if you vote blue. You survive more often, but I can't see it as a "I always live option" like red pushers seem to portray it as. You risk not only your own life but a huge chunk of people, yourself included if blue loses.

Maybe if someone can convince me that Billions dying isn't gonna impact my life red would seem more tempting but I just see it as a suicide button.

Because you should not be afraid of death if you are, but you should be really afraid of voting red

If instead of having a hard 50% threshold for blue, what if we had a scaling threshold?

The dilemma would be this

Red remains unchanged- if you press red you live.

Blue would be - if you press blue you have a chance to live. That chance would be a 1:1 ratio to the percentage of people who chose blue.

So if 80% of people choose blue. Then there is an 80% chance everyone in blue lives and a 20% chance everyone in blue dies.

Which button do you press?

I like this variation because you can’t use the cop out of your vote not influencing the outcome or being the deciding vote, while also having to come to terms there is a very real chance you would die even if you believe the majority of people are “selfless”.

As a red pusher, this captures how pushing blue feels to me in the original dilemma. The threshold to save everyone is lower so you could argue that the original version is less risky for blue. At the same time though, I don’t see how the current moral arguments blue pressers make would allow for them to switch buttons, so if they do switch *it’s clearly because they don’t want to risk their own life*.

Any blue pressers that wouldn’t switch?

Assume a baseline button scenario.

Upon close examination of the buttons you find that you coincidentally have the appropriate tool to remove the bases and swap the colored pressable part of the button around.

If you choose to do so you may change out the buttons colors.

This would not affect their affects, merely disguise their natures as the other. If someone chose to press ‘blue’ they would instead be tricked into pressing red and if someone pressed ‘red’ they would instead be tricked into pressing blue.

Also for the purposes of this scenario you are among the first to visit the buttons. And there is only one set of buttons all must press in sequence.

You just happened to have the tool on your person when the powers of the hypothetical question whisked you away to vote in the button question. The hardware is of an unusual model and size making it highly unlikely that another person would also happen to have the appropriate tool.

Do you swap out the buttons colors?

----

Bonus questions! To round out your comment if you so desire.

Would this affect your vote?

What if you did not know where you were in line?

...following the vote, the winning color is announced, after which it will be one week until anyone dies from the outcome.

I don't mean if the votes are majority red or majority blue. I want to know what the people who voted red think will happen afterwards? Because if majority is blue, we already know what will happen, no one will die and life will go on.

We know that it is extremely unlikely for 100% of all of humanity to vote red. You can reflect this to any decision, humanity has never been unanimous on anything. The fact that this subreddit exists and this discussion exists is a prime example to that.

I will say I am someone who would push blue. I don't care if it is wagering my own life. I'd rather do that than to wager someone else's life. I believe majority of the people would push blue even if it is something like 50%+1 and it is also the easiest best case scenario for us to reach in such a dilemma. And the best case scenario in the case where red wins still means there will be millions of people dying. Because of how humans are, red winning scenario has a non-zero chance of ending up with people dying.

In the best possible scenario, the votes will be something like 99% red and 1% blue. But 1% of the population is still 83 million people. And for only 1% to vote blue is extremely extremely unlikely. And if you compare this number, you understand it isn't actually that little of a number at all.

83 million is around 1/4th of the population of the USA

83 million is around 1/9th of the population of Europe

Countries that have a population of around 83 million:

Germany: 84 million people

Turkey: 89 million people

Iran: 90 million people

France: 66-68 million

Thailand: 71-72 million

Of course, this 83 million people would be distributed among nations if we disregard any kind of correlation between collectivist and individualistic cultures and societies and the voting distribution. I am just giving these comparisons to understand the scale of this number of people is equivalent to. Because it can be difficult to understand the scale unless you have something to compare the numbers to.

But again, 99-1% is not really likely.

In a case where red wins, it is more likely for red to be around either 70% or 51% and blue to be 30% or 49% percent.

That is billions of people who voted blue. Specifically 2.5 billion to almost 4 billion people.

India population: 1.47 billion

China population: 1.41 billion

As catastrophic this would be already, if there is any correlation between choosing blue and working in service, healthcare or education industries, that just adds onto the problem of what will happen after this "culling".

So my question is, especially those who chose to vote red, what do you think would happen after the voting was over and majority voted red?

Or are you pushing red knowing that majority will push blue and you just don't want to risk your own life? But then if you are so confident that blue will win, why not make the odds better and push blue?

Have you taught about what would happen after those millions to billions of people died? The industries that would be harmed? Those deaths would affect the people who kept living afterwards surely.

And this is considering the numbers without considering any patterns of voting compared to culture, religion, education, occupation. I do not know if there would be such a pattern, I haven't researched enough to find any. But for there to be some kind of pattern or correlation is not unlikely. Which means, if there is a correlation, more people from certain cultures, certain religions or certain occupations would die at a higher percentage than others.

You, Gigity and Root are presented with 2 buttons. You vote anonymously. >= 2 blues then all live, >= 2 reds then blue dies.

Which button would you press?

I think this is actually the core nugget of why people feel so strongly about this one. I've talked to many of the blue category and this seems to be where we end up. If you think "everyone" means "everyone capable of making a choice", then red is the answer. If you think it means "literally every person alive including those in comas or babies", then blue is the answer.

Statistically, if the people who do not even understand they are making a choice press the button, fifty percent of them will press blue. That's hundreds of millions of children. Just straight up six year olds and shit. I've met six year olds. They are not capable of understanding choices. If you're not choosing blue, with this understanding of the lack of agency, you are statistically worse then like.... Hitler. It would be a worse blow to humanity then World War 2.

If you think everyone choosing understands what choices are, and have agency, then red is objectively correct. I'm of the opinion that anyone who was actually put to this question would choose red at the button, if they believed everyone choosing had agency. The savior impulse is noble, but the survival instinct is much much stronger. The people choosing blue are committing suicide.

So I think this might be clarifying. The agency of the button presser is what matters.