Poll
| 5 votes (29.41%) | ||
| 12 votes (70.58%) | ||
| No votes (0%) |
17 members have voted
If you press one, you will survive
If you press the other one, you will die unless at least 50% of people select it
When you re-word it that way, the choice of the red button seems obvious
However I would choose the blue button because I don't want anyone to die and I assume that the majority of the world would choose blue
Quote: WizardEveryone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If 50% or more of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
link to original post
At my stage of life, I am more interested in saving the lives of my children and grandchildren. Additionally, the thought of surviving when in some way I was responsible for the death of half the world’s population is not palatable. It’s a no brainer for me. Blue button.
Those who think 6:5 BJ is a good deal will push blue, and be gone!
But the danger is that not everyone will press Red.
And then the danger becomes if not more than 50% press Blue.
Those are the facts. How it pans out, is...unclear and becomes an almost epistemological question.
Quote: WizardEveryone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If 50% or more of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
link to original post
The correct answer is not to engage with contrived questions designed to elicit a certain response in order to brainwash you into thinking a certain way. Especially when presented without the original source and political bias.
The original post was made on Reddit on April 20th, 2023, by user Deadshot3, but its current wave of popularity comes from Tim Urban on x, a buddy of Elon Musk and Ben Shapiro.
You are supposed to choose red. It is similar to the game-theoretic reasoning use to promote mutually assured destruction, over-simplification of conflict resolution decided to make people think being selfish and immoral is the optimal solution. Almost nobody involved with game theory, conflict resolution or military strategy actually thinks like this any more. Didn't work out for Hitler obviously.
Quote: MDawgHow it pans out, is...unclear and becomes an almost epistemological question.
link to original post
This page sites a survey of almost 100,000 votes. 57.9% voted blue.
Original Star Trek on PlutoTV - S1E29 Operation Annihilate.
Quote: MDawgHow it pans out, is...unclear
link to original post
Not unclear at all, Blue is currently winning 3-2 on this forum :D
Quote: WizardEveryone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If 50% or more of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
link to original post
I always keep searching for the white button choice and I never give up
If everybody is allowed to discuss this, I would push Red, after pointing out, "You cannot possibly die if you push red, and if everybody pushes red, then nobody dies."
Otherwise, I would push Blue, even though the "game theory" answer is to push Red.
It reminds me of a game I once played in elementary school:
There were a number of teams.
Each one pushed a red or a blue button."
If everybody pushed red, then everybody lost points.
If everybody pushed blue, then everybody gained points.
If it was a split, then the red buttons gained points, and the blue buttons lost points.
Note that the number of points you got for being the only red was twice the number for everybody pushing blue, and the number you lost for being the only blue was twice the number for everybody pushing red.
To this day, I am convinced that this was all part of somebody's doctoral thesis for trying to get an Ed.D. degree.
The only variables are, (a) what you do, and (b) what your opponents do as a whole.
There are three possibilities for (b):
1. Some choose blue, and some choose red; you will gain points with red, and lose points with blue.
2. Everybody chooses red: you lose twice as many points choosing blue as you would with red.
3. Everybody chooses blue: you gain twice as many points choosing red as you would with blue.
In every case, choosing red is the better choice for you.
Everyone is free to also press the red button and survive, if that's what they want to do. I realize that there are some who may choose to press the blue button; they have their reasons for doing so and because they have the same information as I do they know the possible outcomes and have chosen to accept them. Perhaps they do not wish to survive, or are indifferent towards survival. Because I believe in personal autonomy and individual rights I will not interfere with that, and because only pressing the red button does not impose an outcome on anyone but myself I consider it the only ethical choice.
And what of these blue button-pressers? Despite that I consider them unethical, selfish, convinced that they know what is best for everyone despite no historical record supporting that, I realize that is only my opinion, that I could be wrong, and that they might feel the same way about me. That's OK. I cast my red vote to preserve their freedom as well as mine.
There is a collective insensitive to cooperate but an individual insensitive not to.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: WizardEveryone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If 50% or more of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
link to original post
At my stage of life, I am more interested in saving the lives of my children and grandchildren. Additionally, the thought of surviving when in some way I was responsible for the death of half the world’s population is not palatable. It’s a no brainer for me. Blue button.
link to original post
Gulp. I re-read the question. And read some of the answers above this new post I’m making.
It now seems pretty simple. PUSH THE RED BUTTON. Another way the question can be worded is this…. ‘You can push a Red or Blue button. If you push the Red button you will always survive. If you push the Blue button you may or may not survive, depending on what other people do.’
Since EVERYONE is allowed to push the Red button, PUSH THE RED BUTTON!
Quote: harrisThere are two buttons in front of you.
If you press one, you will survive
If you press the other one, you will die unless at least 50% of people select it
When you re-word it that way, the choice of the red button seems obvious
However I would choose the blue button because I don't want anyone to die and I assume that the majority of the world would choose blue
link to original post
Warning! Warning! Unintended consequence!
Once you push that blue button, you are now incentivized to compel others to do the same, consensually or not, and also to prevent people from pressing the red button.
Then you might even rationalize murdering people whom you think are inclined to push the red button. "It's for the children!" "For God and country!" Still sure you want to get involved with the blue one?
On the other hand when I push the red button, I can show others how they can do the same, and warn them of the dangers of the blue button, and consider them fools if they don't heed my warning, but then I can leave them alone. I don't have to hurt anyone to protect myself.
Some say that cooperation brings peace, but I think a need for cooperation is a cause of conflict. We see political violence in our society now, and it's been mostly a one-way street, because while the red button pushers are just fine with or without the blue button pushers joining them, the blue button pushers need something from the red button pushers to be fine, and harming them in order to secure their compliance is seen as justified. This moral hazard we put ourselves in with the blue button is another reason why it is unethical.
Push the red button and you live.
Everybody should push the red button.
The only reason to risk your life by pushing the blue button is to save the lives of people who push the blue button for some reason.
Of course it also makes sense to put your own mask on before assisting others, but that's not a direct parallel.
I think the blue button pressers are confusing this with the Prisoner's Dilemma, where cooperation is rewarded. In this game, you're not hurting anybody by voting red.
Quote: WizardEveryone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If 50% or more of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
link to original post
Update your blog on your travels to SE asia
Quote: JimRockfordThis is similar to the Prisoner’s Delimmma
There is a collective insensitive to cooperate but an individual insensitive not to.
link to original post
Not really similar to prisoners dilemma, because if everyone presses red then everyone wins. So if everyone presses red then that's also cooperating.
I can't think of any logical reason to press blue. You don't get anything extra if everyone chooses blue; the outcome is the same as if everyone presses red.
Now, if we change the question so that's there's some incentive for blue (say, if more than a certain amount of items choose blue, in addition to survival, we are also given the cure for cancer by an advanced alien civilization), then I could see an argument for blue. As it is, 100% of people should choose red and get on with their lives.
Undeniably, a substantial portion of the world would choose blue, and we would probably be morally obligated to save them by doing that. Everyone choosing blue would guarantee that nobody died. Red is definitely in my own self-interest but I would feel like choosing blue, especially if I felt confident that at least 55%+ of the world was choosing blue.
I wonder how responses to this dilemma vary based on gender and religion.
Press the red one, live, and go about your life.
Quote: 100xOddsUpdate your blog on your travels to SE asia
link to original post
I never went there. I spent 38 days in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Most of the time was spent doing 700 kilometers on the Camino del Norte. I'm writing about it in my WoO newsletter.
Let's just push the button, we'd be better off dead!
'Cause I hate you!
And I berate you!
And I can't wait to get to you!"
Quote: WizardQuote: 100xOddsUpdate your blog on your travels to SE asia
link to original post
I never went there. I spend 38 days in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. Most of the time was spent doing 700 kilometers on the Camino del Norte.
I'm writing about it in my WoO newsletter.
link to original post
Please provide link here when done. (I haven't gone to WoO in years. Too cluttered now)
Would love to read it
Quote: 100xOddsWould love to read it
link to original post
Here is a link to all my old newsletters.

