Support NeoGAF

[John Bilbo]

The blue button is the kill yourself button.

The red button is the not kill yourself button.

Don't press the kill yourself button.

Blue has a downside.

Red does not have a downside.

 

[SatansReverence]

Pretty stupid question.

Red has a 100% chance of survival.

Blue has an indeterminate chance of survival.

Basic mathematics.

 

[calico]

the belief that others are capable of understanding the choices they make

They often aren't. There is a significant % of society for whom this is treated as a given.

people are incapable of making good choices and need to be saved from themselves

They often do.

Red = Everything stays the same
Blue = Actively turn the situation into a gamble

100% Red = Everything stays the same.
>50% Blue = Everything stays the same.

I would suggest if 'everything staying the same' (ie. zero deaths) is the desired outcome, the latter option is the far more likely of the two routes which deliver it.

No attempt from Red bros so far to address the issue of those who are forced to take part regardless of their inability to understand the process (other than by changing the rules of the scenario).

 

[IntentionalPun]

You are saying you voting blue and willingly taking your chances on your own free will and ending up dead isn't a consequence of your action?

Nope, never said that. The consequences of that action would be:
- To myself die
- To contribute to some percentage of humanity who would have otherwise died being saved

The consequence of the red vote is:
- To save myself and contribute to some percentage of humanity dying
- To live but end up being part of the minority who didn't vote to save everyone

 

[Jinzo Prime]

The blue button is the kill yourself button.

The red button is the not kill yourself button.

Don't press the kill yourself button.

Blue has a downside.

Red does not have a downside.

Red does have a downside: Everyone who pressed blue will die. It is not a consequence-free vote.

 

[John Bilbo]

Nope, never said that. The consequences of that action would be:
- To myself die
- To contribute to some percentage of humanity who would have otherwise died being saved

The consequence of the red vote is:
- To save myself and contribute to some percentage of humanity dying
- To live but end up being part of the minority who didn't vote to save everyone

This is what I typed. Whatever you are responding to is not my message.

 

[poodaddy]

And I'll repeat that this is insane to me.

"They created the problem, why didn't all 8 billion people vote red?" (Something that would never occur in reality)

Well why didn't at least 4 billion + 1 people vote blue? The red voters are creating that problem, with every single vote.

Blue voters are voting to save everyone, including the selfish people. Red voters are voting to potentially kill a bunch of unselfish people. Enjoy the aftermath I guess.

Well fuckin said.

 

[nkarafo]

The consequence of the red vote is:
- To save myself and contribute to some percentage of humanity dying
- To live but end up being part of the minority who didn't vote to save everyone

Wait, how is it a minority? If the blue voters died it means the red voters are the majority.

Basic mathematics.

And it looks like the blue voters failed them.

 

[poodaddy]

Pretty stupid question.

Red has a 100% chance of survival.

Blue has an indeterminate change of survival.

Basic mathematics.

For a sociopath, yes.

 

[Trogdor1123]

You aren't. You're voting to increase the pool of people likely to die by one, and hoping for others to put themselves at risk to mitigate the consequences of that choice.

If the original scenario were the same except with the addendum that a single unknown person had been forced to vote blue, then voting blue or red would be more aligned with how the blue voters are imagining it right now. Red voters would be choosing to prioritise their own lives ahead of the death of another, and blue voters would be putting themselves at risk to save a life. In that case, I'd like to think I'd decide to vote blue. However, in a scenario where everyone has exactly the same choice, with no impediments, and one of those choices is to survive, all voting blue is doing is choosing to create a problem which only previously existed as a self-chosen ambiguity: you don't know if anyone else voted blue and decided to put themselves in danger, but you do know they made that choice of their own free will. By voting blue, however, you know for sure that there now exists a pool of people, even if just one, who will die if billions of others don't risk themselves by voting the same way.

I disagree with the premise of your argument. Pressing red is a deliberate action to kill those who choose differently. Choosing blue is directly choosing to keep people who selected differently alive. It's an easy choice for me

 

[calico]

Voting red means there's no chance for you to die, thus it does not contribute in the potential death pile.

You dying isn't the only way you can contribute to the death pile.

 

[BloodFree]

You ain't getting 51% to vote blue no matter what either, especially in a no-initial-prep vote.

Yes, it's impossible all 8 billion will vote red so some people will die.

But it's also highly improbable for more than 50% to vote for blue, knowing the world we live in and how humans work. So some people will die then as well.

The choice is whether you want to live with the red peeps or die with the blue ones. Because the chances everyone lives is highly unlikely.

Basically you only vote for blue if you think the chances 51% of people will also vote for blue is highly likely. Doing otherwise is a suicide.

Sure, I believe I already expressed that I think red will most likely win. I have not changed my opinion on that. Now, I disagree that the red peeps will all survive happily ever after in the world to come, many will join their blue brethren shortly after. But I digress, if you think that will happen, then ... well good luck with that and I guess that will be your world to live in

No, my point was that the whole "just get everyone to vote red" is useless, so using it as a way to support a decision here is also useless. One should make their choice absent of that, I think.

 

[Shubh_C63]

Aliens will survey and cage us if we get this wrong. Like the Space cash south park test.
Don't need non united people in the galactic federation.

 

[ZeroZeroQuatre]

That's actually fucking HILARIOUS in this context, since you're straight up proof that it is impossible to get everyone to press the red button so everyone is saved.
Out of curiosity, after reading the question would you pick red instead ? Cause then you'd be condeming people like yourself to death.

Hmm. Yeah, I'd stick with my blue choice.
In the end, it's about being able to look myself in the mirror.
Rather dying trying to save everyone, than having everyone survive cause I made a selfish choice - and ultimately creating a world entirely populated by people who'd be willing to push ya under the trolley at the first sight of smoke ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[thefool]

Blue voters are killing themselves and blaming red voters. Wild.

 

[poppabk]

The premise is flawed: everyone should press the red button as there is no penalty for pressing the red button, but there is a penalty for pressing the blue button.

Only if consider the potential of millions of toddlers dying as a result of your vote - no penalty.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Blue is the morally correct choice, but red is the most logical....


Fuck man, if there was no time to think I would hit red, but blue is the best outcome and with any prep time, would be the right thing to press.

Edit: I hope the Culture ships aren't observing this

 

[thefool]

Pretty stupid question.

Red has a 100% chance of survival.

Blue has an indeterminate change of survival.

Basic mathematics.

Exactly.
Fundamentally, this is a math problem but distilled in an easy way. Innumeracy is truly astounding to read.

 

[nkarafo]

Blue voters are voting to save everyone, including the selfish people.

No, they are voting to save the other blue voters who are gambling with their lives. The "selfish" people, who voted red, are already saved. Voting blue does not affect their fate at all.

Red voters are voting to potentially kill a bunch of unselfish people. Enjoy the aftermath I guess.

Red voters are voting to save their own lives and choose not to play Russian roulette to save the ones who decided they want to play Russian roulette.

The blue voters can also save their lives by changing to red so they won't have to die. It's fully in their control.

Sure, I believe I already expressed that I think red will most likely win. I have not changed my opinion on that. Now, I disagree that the red peeps will all survive happily ever after in the world to come, if you think that will happen, then ... well good luck with that and I guess that is will be your world to live in

I didn't say the world will be a better place in the aftermath. But you don't know how bad it will be or how long it will take to heal. And you won't find out if you are dead. I rather just find out myself. I only have one existence, not worth wasting it for a highly unlikely outcome.

No, my point was that the whole "just get everyone to vote red" is useless, so using it as a way to support a decision here is also useless. One should make their choice absent of that, I think.

I agree, it would be impossible for everyone to vote for red.

It would not be impossible for 51% to vote blue but it's still highly unlikely, based on world experience.

Question is, are you willing to put your life on the line for this?

I would only vote for blue if there was enough time for countries to prep everyone they should vote for blue, including third world countries or shit holes like North Korea, who probably want to see the world burn and probably even benefit from it as they don't have much to lose but everything to gain afterwards.

You dying isn't the only way you can contribute to the death pile.

But adding yourself to that pile willingly is the only way for the pile to exist in the first place.

 

[John Bilbo]

Only if consider the potential of millions of toddlers dying as a result of your vote - no penalty.

I'd argue the premise is flawed again: there's no way everyone is able to press the button.

 

[Bojji]

You ain't getting 51% to vote blue no matter what either, especially in a no-initial-prep vote.

Yes, it's impossible all 8 billion will vote red so some people will die.

But it's also highly improbable for more than 50% to vote for blue, knowing the world we live in and how humans work. So some people will die then as well.

The choice is whether you want to live with the red peeps or die with the blue ones. Because the chances everyone lives is highly unlikely.

Basically you only vote for blue if you think the chances 51% of people will also vote for blue is highly likely. Doing otherwise is a suicide.

You are forgetting that billions of people are living in societies more collective and less individualistic than USA, with big families and much stronger family values - their first instinct might not be "save my selfish ass".

Half of population are women and they are more empathetic and they will most likely vote for blue - especially if they have children (to save them).

Old people won't care that much about living in hellscape (that would be created by red voters winning) so they will most likely vote blue to save their families.

Children most likely would vote blue as well (first reaction is that it sounds "good" vs. red choice).

 

[calico]

Exactly.
Fundamentally, this is a math problem but distilled in an easy way. Innumeracy is truly astounding to read.

This requires assuming that 'personal survival' is the only goal of the exercise, which is not a condition imposed by the question.

If the question asked 'which should you pick to maximise your own chance of survival?' then I would agree it is a simple math problem, but it doesn't.

 

[thefool]

You are forgetting that billions of people are living in societies more collective and less individualistic than USA, with big families and much stronger family values - their first instinct might not be "save my selfish ass".

The instinct of the family is to preserve the family. The family all votes red

Half of population are women and they are more empathetic and they will most likely vote for blue - especially if they have children (to save them).

Children can't decide. They vote whatever their parents tell them to, and the parents want them to live. The children vote red.

Old people won't care that much about living in hellscape (that would be created by red voters winning) so they will most likely vote blue to save their families.

Lol, their families voted red mate.

 

[Bojji]

The instinct of the family is to preserve the family. The family all votes red



Children can't decide. They vote whatever their parents tell them to, and the parents want them to live. The children vote red.



Lol, their families voted red mate.

You are assuming that people can consult before voting. First instinct would be to vote blue to save everyone in your family (no matter how they voted).

 

[ValiantInstance]

Why would anyone press the red button?

A fair percentage of the world's population have no concept of empathy. Some of them don't even understand object permanence.

If you go blue, you would die.

 

[Sub_Level]

Blue is the no-morals or values button.

Red is the button if you have no morals or values.

 

[Putonahappyface]

Blue.

Red button it is

Blue button it is then.

 

[AJUMP23]

That's what people are reading into it, but nothing guarantees survival. Red is not an immortality button. It is a kill other people button.

I just pushed a button. Not my fault they made a different choice.

Marvel was better after Thanos snapped.

 

[John Bilbo]

The premise does not take into account whether people can discuss before the vote. It does say the vote is private.

Well anyways if the vote is supposed to be private and if the premise is there is no discussion allowed before the vote I don't think we should be discussing this in the first place.

 

[nkarafo]

You are forgetting that billions of people are living in societies more collective and less individualistic than USA, with big families and much stronger family values - their fist instinct might not be "save my selfish ass".

Half of population are women and they are more empathetic and they will most likely vote for blue - especially if they have children (to save them).

Old people won't care that much about living in hellscape (that would be created by red voters winning) so they will most likely vote blue to save their families.

Children most likely would vote blue as well (first reaction is that it sounds "good" vs. red choice).

True, a lot of those people will vote for what feels right instead of logical. But then you have to take into account:

- The people who rather just play it safe and save their own lives.
- The people who will chicken out the last moment.
- The people who live in secular societies but have nothing to lose, like poor people. They are already at the bottom of the barrel so that's a chance to equalize everyone with them and start fresh.
- The people who live in third world countries or dictatorships, who want to see all of US, Europe and every successful secular world fail and a chance to equalize.
- Children will vote whatever their parents tells them to and i doubt parents want to risk the lives of their children.

I think blue is in the minority here.

 

[Meicyn]

Isn't this basically that one scene from the dark knight.

Yep, and apparently the average GAF user is this guy:

Logically, in a vacuum, red is the only correct answer. But you're dealing with human beings with emotions with a not-at-all-insignificant contingent of them making emotion-based decisions, and so the human factor has to be considered. Self-preservation instinct alone varies from person to person.

Take firefighters for example, some of the strongest and most courageous men (and in rare cases women) our societies have. These are people who choose a profession where they're paid very little to go run inside burning buildings to save people they don't know. They have no idea if the person they're saving is an upstanding citizen or a child predator. They aren't screening folks in advance. They go in, at risk of losing their own lives, and save people. Repeatedly.

In the current Iran War just about a week ago, numerous American troops willingly risked their own lives to go save two aviators who crashed in Iran. The whole rescue operation cost about $500 million to get them out, and more American aviators and rescue folks could have been dragged into the situation and made things even worse if things had not gone well. The logical decision would have been to let the aviators fend for themselves, cut our losses, because more pilots are trained all the time and spending almost half a billion to rescue two people sounds crazy. But we chose to be better.

Most moms will choose to sacrifice themselves on behalf of their children. Logically, that's "stupid" since they can just have more kids. But that emotional bond is powerful. It is easy to underestimate the influence such bonds have upon people. And you can betcha that a majority of moms are going to pick the blue option.

All things considered, I would vote blue.

 

[thefool]

What blue voters listen as they go to hell after leaving their family and children behind

 

[BloodFree]

I didn't say the world will be a better place in the aftermath. But you don't know how bad it will be or how long it will take to heal. And you won';t find out if you are dead. I rather just find out myself. I only have one existence, not worth wasting it for a highly unlikely outcome.

Sure, I don't know the scale of the resulting chaos and devastation, but I DO know it will happen and am VERY sure of it. Even more sure than the outcome of the vote actually LOL.

Some of the people who voted red WILL die as a result of their own vote, so again, to say that everyone who votes red ultimately lives is ... yeah, I take some issue with that.

Why ? For the same reason I believe red would most likely win and the same reason you have given for red winning. The way the world works and people behave. I think that you can agree with me on this as it is a realistic worldview. Surely you can not with the same breath state that people will place their own survival above others in the initial vote, but then hold hands and sing kumbaya afterwards, that is illogical.

If you wish to live and fight in such a world, that is perfectly reasonable, more power to you and I wish you the best of luck in such a scenario

 

[Bojji]

True, a lot of those people will vote for what feels right instead of logical. But then you have to take into account:

- The people who rather just play it safe and save their own lives.
- The people who will chicken out the last moment.
- The people who live in secular societies but have nothing to lose, like poor people. They are already at the bottom of the barrel so that's a chance to equalize everyone with them and start fresh.
- The people who live in third world countries or dictatorships, who want to see all of US, Europe and every successful secular world fail and a chance to equalize.

I think blue is in the minority here.

What you are describing sounds like few hundred millions vs. billions of people that want their families to live. First instinct would be to save their families, all that "make america suffer" if FAR beyond thinking of a normal human being (especially when most american males would vote red lol).

I'm sure that vast majority of women would vote blue so you would end up with a world full of hateful men (if red wins by a single vote).

 

[SJRB]

Plot twist: Evilore will permaban everyone who voted blue.

Let the great culling begin!

 

[Trogdor1123]

It's a bit ironic as I would 100% vote blue but I would also 100% tell my wife and kids to vote red. Thank god it's only a thought experiment… until the UK implements it I'm sure.

 

[nkarafo]

First instinct would be to save their families

Assuming there's some time to prep, you really think families won't urge each other to press red?

If you are a parent, would ypu tell your children to press red or blue? Be honest.

all that "make america" suffer if FAR beyond thinking of a normal human being (especially when most american males would vote red lol).

What normal human being? This isn't a US only vote. It' a worldwide vote. The vast majority of people are not "normal human beings". The vast majority are people who live miserable lives.

I'm sure that vast majority of women would vote blue so you would end up with a world full of hateful men (if red wins by a single vote).

ugh, so much wrong in that statement, come on man.

 

[ValiantInstance]

If it was a countrywide vote, I think blue would win. It's the worldwide scope that changes the answer.

I have a bond and connection to my kin. I don't care about some geezer in China or Iran, and he doesn't care about me.

 

[nkarafo]

It's a bit ironic as I would 100% vote blue but I would also 100% tell my wife and kids to vote red. Thank god it's only a thought experiment… until the UK implements it I'm sure.

Ok i can see the logic behind this but you are literally lowering your already low chances to be with your family.

Are you willing to throw that away just to save a minority of strangers who don't have any common sense?

 

[poodaddy]

A fair percentage of the world's population have no concept of empathy.

This thread is, unfortunately, proof of this.

Still, blue. I need to be able to face my child with pride at the end, pride in what kind of example of man I was. I'd never put someone's life, particularly many lives, in jeopardy to guarantee my own.

 

[Bojji]

Assuming there's some time to prep, you really think families won't urge each other to press red?

If you are a parent, would ypu tell your children to press red or blue? Be honest.


What normal human being? This isn't a US only vote. It' a worldwide vote. The vast majority of people are not "normal human beings". The vast majority are people who live miserable lives.


ugh, so much wrong in that statement, come on man.

People have the strong connections with their: 1. families -> 2. villages/towns/cities -> 3. countries. They don't give a shit about big bad USA/Europe man that lives few thousands kilometers from them, especially if they know that they will vote red anyway if their are "evil".

You are assuming that parents can make votes for their children, nothing like that is in the original question - everyone would vote without ability to consult with anyone else (including children).

Women would vote blue - at least majority of them.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Ok i can see the logic behind this but you are literally lowering your already low chances to be with your family.

Are you willing to throw that away just to save a minority of strangers who don't have any common sense?

I'm not willing to personally vote to kill someone who has done nothing wrong.

I read your post above and your logic is sound. I'm saying I can't and wouldn't vote for red.

I get it why someone would vote red, but I couldn't. In no world could I vote for a system where some innocent person, particularly a child, would pay the price.

I'd vote for life, not death. I understand the other perspective though for sure.

 

[Meicyn]

Plot twist: Evilore will permaban everyone who voted blue.

Let the great culling begin!

Additional plot twist: all remaining members have this guy as their avatar as a constant reminder of what they are deep down

 

[John Bilbo]

This thread is, unfortunately, proof of this.

Still, blue. I need to be able to face my child with pride at the end, pride in what kind of example of man I was. I'd never put someone's life, particularly many lives, in jeopardy to guarantee my own.

If the premise allows discussion before the vote, voting red is the empathetic choice.

 

[Bojji]

If the premise allows discussion before the vote, voting red is the empathetic choice.

Everyone voting red would be the best choice but this is not statistically possible (that includes errors done by disabled people, elderly or children).

 

[BloodFree]

If the premise allows discussion before the vote, voting red is the empathetic choice.

It does not. Here it is:

I think for the main scenario:

No foreknowledge or ability to discuss strategy with other people. Everyone chooses at the same time. Children also must choose. Babies are given the Lone Wolf and Cub treatment and can signal by crawling to a prop visually representing each respective choice, something appropriate for their development. Abstaining will result in the person's death.

 

[John Bilbo]

It does not. Here it is:

Ah. Ok. The premise was not as precise in the first message of the thread.

 

[John Bilbo]

Well the whole discussion is scuffed as the premise is or was not included in the first message where the actual voting happened.

After the updated premise I'm much more inclined to vote blue.

 

[nkarafo]

Ok put some more thought into it:

1) You don't have time to think or prep = Red button. If my supposed family doesn't have common sense and dies, i will live miserably with the consequences or kill myself later. Otherwise pressing red is the only chance for all of us to survive because blue is going to lose anyway. I'll take that chance and deal with whatever comes to me later.

2) You do have time to think or prep = Red button 100%. I urge everyone i know, friends, family, etc, to press red. It's the only way to be 100% sure we all survive. Blue is also going to lose anyway.

3) There's enough time for the world to prep it's citizens = Most likely red again for the same reason as number 2. There's a higher chance blue will win but again, not high enough. The world isn't going to agree to a common cause.

I'm not willing to personally vote to kill someone who has done nothing wrong.

I just don't see it that way. The person who votes blue is the one gambling with their life. You pressing red doesn't force them in any way to press blue.

Women would vote blue - at least majority of them.

I don't know why you are so sure about this. Women are more empathetic yes, they act this way in a safe country where they have no problems but how are you so sure they will continue to be with a gun on their head?

You trust humans more than me. That's why you will press blue. I don't. it's not that i want people to die, it's that i don't believe there's a way to avoid it.

 

[Pagusas]

So if i got this right, this is basically "kill all the people who lack basic reading comprehention and basic logic skills" question?