epicurius-seven
Gold Member
Some proportion of the red pushers will understand the stupidity of the game, and will agonise over the choices the people they want to keep around might make.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Everyone on Earth has to press a button
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
nkarafo
Member
Yes but i don't trust the vast majority of people are idealists enough to press the blue button in the end. So even if i am an idealist myself, would i really want to kill myself to prove it?
this is 100% a matter of gambling/betting what the end result will be and i bet the end result would be way more red buttons, especially if the voting is private. Me pressing the blue button because i would love to save others who also pressed the same wouldn't change anything, i would only add myself in the dead people list. Because that's what i think humanity would choose and i'm about 95% sure for that. Maybe 70-80% if the vote is public.
You not pressing the red button to save yourself doesn't make me a murdered. If you want to gamble then it's 100% your responsibility, not mine.
And yes, i don't trust the vast majority of humans, at all. I bet the majority would press the red button and more than half of people who claim they would press the blue one, would press the red button anyway.
Sorry but pressing the blue button doesn't mean you are saving people, it means you are adding yourself to the relatively small dead people pile.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Except there are consequences for other people - people who would risk their own lives to save yours.
nkarafo
Member
Ok so you are an idealist and want to save people from themselves, i get it. I want that too but the real question is, do you really TRUST the vast majority thinks this way and will push through? Would you really press the blue button even though you most certainly know you will be in a very small minority and you won't be saving anyone anyway? Would you literally die on that hill to prove something?
Last edited:
For the record, the majority of respondents on Twitter did press blue.
nkarafo
Member
Yes, because it's not a real scenario so it's easier to virtue signal to ourselves and/or others.
Real question, what do you think the result would be if this was an actual real scenario? I'm not asking you what button would you press, just the result.
uncreativename
Member
I press the blue button 
Red, with billions dying.
BloodFree
Member
Honestly, I'd say you're probably right and I think the result would be red in such a scenario, yes. Especially if the vote was private. The results in this poll here is what I expected.
Last edited:
uncreativename
Member
Actually wait, I didn't read that carefully enough. If everyone presses the red button, no one dies either? If that's true, then I press the red button.
BloodFree
Member
Yes that's true, but that's extremely unrealistic. A good share would pick blue. 100% of either color means everyone survives, so it doesn't matter what you pick then, but there's no way to guarantee that.
Itchy.Tasty.
Member
More than 50% of the world lives on under $10 a day. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of them are going to press red - they have less to lose and potentially more to gain out of this drastic near-reset.
Add in the wealthier people who simply want to press red to survive.
I'm fairly confident the blue tally won't be passing 50%.
So, red it is.
Add in the wealthier people who simply want to press red to survive.
I'm fairly confident the blue tally won't be passing 50%.
So, red it is.
nkarafo
Member
And keep in mind, this is a thought experiment and not a real scenario. People love to feel good about themselves when they are safe. The red voters are just the ones who openly admit they would press the red button and almost surely they would not change their vote in a real case scenario.
The blue votes include people who would vote otherwise if this was a real case scenario. And at least a few people who would chicken out the very last moment. Basically the blue voters have a much bigger chance of changing their vote to red in a real scenario. So expect the "real" poll to be even more skewed against blue.
uncreativename
Member
Mm, I feel like I could make it a tougher question. Let's see...
Everyone on Earth has to press either a red or a blue button. If 50% or more of people press the blue button, everyone lives. If over 85% of people press the red button, everyone dies. If it's anything between that, everyone who pressed red lives and everyone who pressed blue dies.
I'd press blue to that btw.
epicurius-seven
Gold Member
Despite my generally misanthropic nature, I do see a problem with killing a blue minority as you will be left with less nice well meaning people overall even if 'it is their fault'.
falconhoof
Member
BloodFree
Member
Oh, absolutely. There are simply way more arguments I could make for red being picked over blue on an individual level. It's part of why I believe red would win. With the way the world works, it is simply a reasonable expectation to have.
Well, sure, but the point of the question isn't to make it a hard choice per say, it is to have predictable outcomes so as to test yourself. Your scenario is just too difficult to predict then, so the outcome might start getting into gambling territory. All the original question tests at the end of the day is "is your guaranteed survival more important than everything else". It works because it offers a simple choice and predictable consequences for your choice.Mm, I feel like I could make it a tougher question. Let's see...
Everyone on Earth has to press either a red or a blue button. If 50% or more of people press the blue button, everyone lives. If over 85% of people press the red button, everyone dies. If it's anything between that, everyone who pressed red lives and everyone who pressed blue dies.
I'd press blue to that btw.
Last edited:
uncreativename
Member
I guess if your inclination is to press red, then yeah it does make it about gambling lol, but as someone who'd press blue, my new question makes it more about "would you be willing to maybe sacrifice yourself to let others live?"
Unknown Soldier
Banned
Suicidal empathy is the worst kind of 'well meaning', if you empathize more with criminals than with victims, if you empathize more with illegal immigrants than native born citizens, then you are a danger to the society you dwell in and you are the cause of more misery and suffering instead of whatever it is you think you are doing
If the world could be rid of judges who release repeat offending criminals 48 times before they finally murder someone, then the world would become a better place for example
nkarafo
Member
First of all, not being able to save someone from themselves doesn't mean you are killing them. It's on them.
Secondly, i don't think pressing the blue button is a smart move. Why is that? Ask yourself the same question i did, regardless of what do you want to press, what do you really think the end result will be?
Everyone who is smart or realist enough knows it's going to be red. Good person or bad person, we know it's red.
Being smart or realist doesn't make you a bad person. The most well meaning person on earth can also be smart enough to not kill themselves for nothing.
So yeah, even though most of the dead blue voters will be well meaning people, they will also be the dumber ones. Yeah, i can say it, it's not like it's a real scenario so i'm not offending the dead. Dumber well meaning people don't necessarily make the world a better place, in fact i would argue they make it worse. So i think humanity would not become a post apocalyptic nightmare or something.
Rockondevil
Member
See ya later blue losers.
Your subroutines are malfunctioning.
epicurius-seven
Gold Member
Oh I would instinctively pick red.
But the test is more about judging other people than your own choice. I don't feel that all the people I am fond of would vote the same way.
But I'm not confident of what the winning button would be. I would just hope that the result either way would be an either unchanged or more tolerable world.
(Being smart doesn't automatically qualify one as more tolerable).
I resent the choice because it is nothing more than totally unnecessary death by psychological manipulation. At that point you might just as well say 'fuck it, It's not my fault, go red'.
BloodFree
Member
Hehe, actually, full disclosure, even if it might seem like I'm simping hard for red here, because to me, it seems like the most likely outcome, I actually picked blue myself in this poll and most likely would still pick blue if presented with a real choice on the matter, assuming same conditions.
Here's my choice:
I'm not going to go into why (though it's probably not what you think), but just because, realistically, I think red would win, doesn't mean I'm necessarily inclined to pick it.
TheUnicornGuy
Gold Member
Is it a sudden "you have 30 seconds to decide" out of nowhere vote or is there like a 6 month lead up, where you can discuss it with your family and friends?
nkarafo
Member
If you think red would win then why pick blue knowing it will kill you without even benefiting someone else?
I know you said you don't want to go into it but you can't just say something so controversial and leave everyone hanging
I'm going to bet it's an afterlife/religion thing
That's actually a good question. Not only you don't have time to discuss it, you don't even have enough time to fully analyze the choices and might instinctively go for the one that looks better momentarily..
I think in that case i would simply panic and choose whatever doesn't kill me before i know why it did.
Last edited:
calico
Member
The context in which the vote is being conducted would largely determine the outcome I think (is there a lengthy public discussion period, or does time stop and everyone has to answer individually on the spot with zero ability to discuss with anyone? are children voting? etc.), but it's an interesting scenario either way.
If there's a public discussion period (like an election) and children have to vote: an unbeatable consensus will quickly form around 'everyone press Blue', because it's the only option which can prevent children killing themselves.
Public discussion period but children (and the mentally incapable etc.) excluded: I still think a consensus forms around 'everyone press Blue' and it still wins.
Time stops, zero consultation, children etc. excluded is the best chance for a Red victory.
If there's a public discussion period (like an election) and children have to vote: an unbeatable consensus will quickly form around 'everyone press Blue', because it's the only option which can prevent children killing themselves.
Public discussion period but children (and the mentally incapable etc.) excluded: I still think a consensus forms around 'everyone press Blue' and it still wins.
Time stops, zero consultation, children etc. excluded is the best chance for a Red victory.
Last edited:
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
There is zero chance 50+% of people press blue, unless all the human beings with a hand to press a button but no understanding of the situation somehow all press blue by pure chance.
Remove toddlers from the equation and blue loses 100% of the time.
Remove toddlers from the equation and blue loses 100% of the time.
YCoCg
Member
I applaud your determination
BloodFree
Member
Is it really that controversial though ? hehe.If you think red would win then why pick blue knowing it will kill you without even benefiting someone else?
I know you said you don't want to go into it but you can't just say something so controversial and leave everyone hanging
I'm going to bet it's an afterlife/religion thing
No, I mostly picked blue out of selfish reasons, though there was some idealism and other personal feelings there too.
But fine I'll give you just one reason among others that I have. Red wins, blue dies. You survive. The question then becomes: Hundreds of millions if not billions will probably pick blue. They are now suddenly dead. What happens next ?
Economically, the world collapses, you're probably now in a GREAT depression. Population collapses overnight. Services and quality of life collapses. Infrastructure goes kaput. Most likely the people that picked blue are women/children since they are more empathetic. Families get destroyed. Population collapses a second time in time due to that. Some countries with lower starting populations might get completely devasted by this outcome. Invasions/Wars are a real possibility then. It would be complete fucking chaos. Maybe not an apocalyptic event in the long term, but short term, a heavy blow to humanity and complete misery. Is that world worth living in ... who knows ... I might just decide to go out in comfort is what I'm saying.
Last edited:
near
Gold Member
If I press red, I guarantee my own survival. But if I press blue, there is a chance I'd die. I think the chances of most people pressing red are incredibly high. The question becomes whether I'd even want to survive and live in a world made up entirely of people who chose self-preservation over everyone else, and the answer is probably no.
Pressing blue is the best collective choice for humanity, and because the vote is private, you'd need to have a lot of faith in people to also make that choice. Most people simply wouldn't and red becomes the obvious choice.
I think there are a lot of good people in the world who'd still press blue, hoping to keep everyone alive. I'd prefer to join that camp.
Pressing blue is the best collective choice for humanity, and because the vote is private, you'd need to have a lot of faith in people to also make that choice. Most people simply wouldn't and red becomes the obvious choice.
I think there are a lot of good people in the world who'd still press blue, hoping to keep everyone alive. I'd prefer to join that camp.
Dr. Suchong
Member
TheUnicornGuy
Gold Member
Pshh, you got yourself killed, fool.
Lost all faith in GAF, you got me killed fuckers!
calico
Member
These are the conditions as written: 'Everyone in the world has to...'
How those unable or unwilling to press either button are dealt with is unclear, only that everyone has to. If we change the scenario from the one presented -which imposes that condition- to some other variation which does not impose that condition, then the choices and outcomes may well be different.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
You already do, mate.
thefool
Member
To me this is simply a group-based incentives challenge. Putting children breaks the purpose of the challenge, like i wrote, you cannot guarantee a child picks a button, you would need an adult to press it for them or tell them which button they should press, and we go back to square one (the adult choice).
Thinking about this through, we can summarize it as: Would you be willing to jeopardize your life for a group of people who might not be able to interpret the text of the vote?
a) If you believe there is a lot of people who can't interpret it properly, this is the terrifying scenario and you cannot predict what they will vote. Voting anything other than red is suicide
b) If you believe there is only a very small subset who can't interpret it properly, that means there is no chance blue even gets many votes. Voting anything other than red is suicide
I suppose this intends to mimic our western world where a large group of people are voting for detrimental scenarios that they do not understand the consequences (blue voters), but, in their defense, they are being lied/fooled.
Last edited:
near
Gold Member
Not really. Whatever sort of world we live in now, it would be quite different from the surviving world filtered down to people who, for whatever reason, chose themselves over the collective. The only ones left would be those who knowingly sacrificed the people who voted for the everyone to survive.
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
I immediately hit red cause I know humans and humans are selfish cunts
calico
Member
I can't, but the imposed condition of the scenario as written guarantees it.
I'm not seeing that. The consequence of a Blue >50% result is presumably really that 'everyone survives', which unless we are trying to have people die seems like the optimal outcome (tied with Red 100%).
For it to mimic the Western world, 'Blue victory = everyone survives' would have to just be a lie to get people to vote Blue, with the actual consequence of a Blue victory being some other (worse) thing. For it to really mimic the Western world, the game runner would ignore the result and do whatever they wanted to do anyway.
nkarafo
Member
Pressing red doesn't mean you killed/sacrificed anyone. It means you didn't risk most likely killing yourself. Pressing blue means you killed/sacrificed yourself. Your choice, nobody else killed you, nobody forced your finger.
The remaining people aren't the bad ones, that's a simplistic, one dimensional view. The survivors are the pragmatic, smart ones with critical thinking. It should be obvious that the end result would be the red will win by a massive margin. So killing yourself because you think you are saving others from themselves doesn't prove you are a good person, it proves you are a dumb one. Because all you did is you knowingly killed yourself and didn't save anyone in the process. Another pointless death with zero gain, you even made your friends and family more sad.
There are a lot of good people in the world who'd still press red. Why not join that camp?
Anyway, this is not a real case scenario so it's easy to say "i will kill myself to prove this or that" or "because i can't live in this world anymore". But we all know everyone who is saying this would not go through. You would all press the red button and you know it. The act of suicide and self sacrifice for dumb reasons has been overdone in movies so we think we could all do it but we wouldn't.
Last edited:
It is not accurate to describe the known outcome of a vote solely from the perspective of how it affects you personally. If you vote red, and the blues die because of a red majority, that is attributable to your vote.
