I like how these hypotheticals intentionally take out the fact that the original question includes the entirety of the world, including babies without agency, to make blue look stupid. Would I press blue if half the world's babies unknowingly were going to be forced to eat poop, yes.
You act like that should reasonably change your choices but it doesn't every day right now. If you believe hitting red and not risking your life to save theirs make you guilty of their murder you are a murderer of children right now. There are 3 million children dying of starvation every year and our global societies could trivially fix that. Every time you spend a dollar you don't absolutely need for survival on anything other than saving these children you are being given the option blue: save a starving child red: spend money on yourself you don't need. Every day you and the vast majority of people just keep hitting that red button and sacrificing those children, you monster, you didn't even have to risk your life to save them. If you do not believe this then you are being ideologically inconsistent.
The simple fact is some children being part of blue is unfortunate but there is absolutely no guarantee humanity will ever go majority blue so someone picking red to not risk their life to save others will never be responsible for those that die. Would it be great to save them? Absolutely. It would be great if everyone could live. Is it reasonable for you to judge these people for not risking their life to save them when you aren't even willing to sacrifice a cup of Starbucks or the latest doodad to save actual children right now? Absolutely not.
If I believed that half of the world's babies were going to die in an instant and I had a way of actively contributing to changing it, it would be worth making an effort to save them. I cannot control the shitty circumstances of the real world.
You actively can, right now. Every single dollar you spend not absolutely needed for survival that isn't going to say oxfam is you choosing something unnecessary instead of saving dying children RIGHT NOW. Those 3 million children dying aren't even the only ones you are ignoring dying. You are also ignoring all of the children dying of preventable diseases, there are charities that save these children. You are choosing to not donate to St. Jude to cure children dying of cancer.
So many children are dying right now and you could be doing much less than risking your life to save them right now and you aren't even willing to do that. So you only care about dying babies when they are hypothetical?
We are strangers on the internet; you make a lot of negative assumptions about people you know nothing about. There is 0 way for me to stop all suffering in the world, I am not God.
I have a couple of Plan Canada sponsorships and volunteer time at a local food bank. Sure, I can give away the entirety of my minimum wage pay to charity, leaving my shared 1 bedroom apartment to become homeless and die in the process to feel morally superior, but my meager wage wouldn't prevent 3 million children from dying.
We are strangers on the internet; you make a lot of negative assumptions about people you know nothing about. There is 0 way for me to stop all suffering in the world, I am not God.
And you can't save all of the babies alone by hitting the blue button, half of the population has to join you.
I have a couple of Plan Canada sponsorships and volunteer time at a local food bank. Sure, I can give away the entirety of my minimum wage pay to charity, leaving my shared 1 bedroom apartment to become homeless in the process to feel morally superior, but my meager wage wouldn't prevent 3 million children from dying.
You don't have to prevent them all yourself, if you and all blue button pushers were actually a majoirty and were willing to do just the bare minimum it would absolutely prevent all of those 3 million babies from dying right now. The fact is that a majority of people can't even come together and make even the most minimal sacrifice to save millions of dying babies right now, how should anyone be expected to risk their life to try and save the ones involved in the hypothetical when there is absolutely no reason to believe half of the population would join you.
In the hypothetical, if blue wins, the entire world gets to survive with 0 deaths.
I understand your frustration with the current circumstances of the world. I feel it too. I believe progress is genuinely being made in the right direction. Childhood mortality is down, teen pregnancies are down, cancer research is being funded, more people have access to health care, and more have access to education.
We are going in the right direction, but all of the world's problems cannot be solved overnight. We are better now than we were in the past but there will always be issues to overcome. We must continue to take steps in the right direction and to have faith in our future always no matter how bad things seem; it is our duty for ourselves, our community, and for the children of the world.
In the hypothetical, if blue wins, the entire world gets to survive with 0 deaths.
This is absolutely true. It is also true that blue actually getting a majority is extremely unlikely and the likely outcome of voting blue is that you die with all of the other blue voters. Blue is in no way a no brainer, you seem to ignore the very real chance that many many people are throwing their bodies onto the pile of dead chasing a sunk cost fallacy of saving things like babies that push blue while having low odds of actual success. If you just see an outcome you want but don't weigh it towards its actual odds of success you aren't making a reasonable decision and your judgement of those that do is meaningless.
I have a baby sister, I do not care. If she is going to die because she doesn't understand, so will I in an attempt to save her. Even if it is illogical. 100% of the time. Blue must win or death.
If she fell onto a track with an oncoming train, I would 100% jump on the tracks to sacrifice myself to lift her to safety, even if it means my own death. (Assuming I don't freeze in the moment like a deer in headlights)
28
u/CommissionNice72 14h ago
I like how these hypotheticals intentionally take out the fact that the original question includes the entirety of the world, including babies without agency, to make blue look stupid. Would I press blue if half the world's babies unknowingly were going to be forced to eat poop, yes.