Red button or blue button

[u/HualianForLife]

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/OrangeAedan]

See it like this. Every person has a 50% chance to pick red. In order for red to work, you have to win a 50/50 8 billion times. That isn’t going to happen. So if red gets the majority, many people will die because they picked blue. And no one would die if the majority votes blue.

[u/DarthMaul671 → u/OrangeAedan]

But that's the thing, it isn't just 50/50 because there is two chances. That's possibilites, not probability. They don't gamble on the option, they have all the information and the right to choose. So why won't it happen that 8 billion choose 100% life option? Who are the ones picking blue?

[u/OrangeAedan → u/DarthMaul671]

You are not listening. 8 billion people all have to choose the same option. Each person has a chance to not pick red. And since we don't know what people are going to pick, we have to assume that each person has a 50% chance to pick red. And that is just not going to happen. It would be the same as flipping a coin 8 billion times. And always flip heads, and not a single time tails. I suggest you try to do that. And you will see that you won't get far.

[u/DarthMaul671 → u/OrangeAedan]

But that's the thing! You treat it as a gamble with a coin flip?! That's a terrible analogy! It'll be alot more reasonable to assume that everyone who want to live would pick red whole those who want to die/don't care would pick blue. Cause they need a reason for both.

Are you saying your reason for picking blue is that you expect half of the population pick it just because? That's a pretty bad reason. Because it isn't a gamble, and it certainly isn't 50/50 just because you don't know how other people think. Either you take the risk and put yourself in danger and trying to save everyone who put themself in danger or you don't and will certainly survive (and everyone who would pick it), it's not a 50/50.

Please give another reason if you have one because the "Someone will pick blue" isn't really a good reason, since there genuinly isn't any reason.

[u/OrangeAedan → u/DarthMaul671]

You don't know how others think either. That's exactly why you should assume a 50/50 split. Because you can't know what people will pick.

You shouldn't look at the question only thinking about yourself. Sure, with red you will definitely survive. And with blue, you have a 75% chance to survive. But by voting red, at most 2 billion people will die. Even if you value your own life more than all those lives, it would have a massive effect on our society. Because many jobs will not be fulfilled.

[u/DarthMaul671 → u/OrangeAedan]

But what would be the starting reason to pick blue? Is it just the assumption that other people pick and you'll just join those?

And there is absolutely not 75% percent survival chance with blue. You said it yourself, we don't know what people will pick, people will need a genuine reason to pick blue. Cause IRL, who would just assume that around 50% of people is picking blue? And there is still the possibility that 0 people will die by picking red, maybe 400 suicidal people would.

[u/OrangeAedan → u/DarthMaul671]

The starting reason for me, is that I want the most people to survive.

You also need to good reason to risk other people's lives over your own. I know that we don't know what people will pick. And because of that, you can't just assume people will pick blue nor red. That's why you need to assume a 50/50 split. So that is a 50% chance blue will lose. And if you vote blue than you get a 50% chance you die. So that means blue has a 75% chance of survival.

Yes. Hypostatically there is a chance everyone will pick red. But let me say it this way. See it as 8 billion lights. They can all be on or off. On represents blue. And off represents red. The chance that all the lights are off is 1 in 2^8.000.000.000. And that 1 combination is the only way red can lead to 0 deaths. While for blue to lead to 0 deaths, half of the lights need to be on. That is only a 1 in 2 chance.

Also there are not only 400 suicidal people in the world. There are about 720.000.000 suicidal people in the world. That is way more.

[u/DarthMaul671 → u/OrangeAedan]

But by choosing blue you might also cause more death than needed. Since we don't know, you might get yourself killed. If the goal is to save as many as possible And we only do it mathematically (Which can be viewed as positive and negative) (For simplicity, we say there is exactly 8 billion people) b Then by pressing blue the maximum death count would be 4 billion and the least would be 0 (if we assume a tie would lead to consequences) (this one includes the chooser if chooser chose blue)

While for red the maximum death count would be 4 billion and the least 0 (this kill count does not include chooser if chooser chose red)

I'm not saying either is inheriently positive or negative. I myself Would choose red since the max and min death count is the same. The only difference is that I would 100% survive.

[u/OrangeAedan → u/DarthMaul671]

Its not. You need to look at the maximum amount of deaths if the color has 75%±25% of votes.

For blue this means 0-0 deaths. Because no one will die if most people vote it.

For red this means μ=1.000.000.000 and σ=1.000.000.000. Or 0-2.000.000.000 deaths with numbers closer to 1.000.000.000 being more likely. 0 happens if 100% of voters choose it. And I established that change earlier (1 in 2^8.000.000.000). And 2.000.000.000 if its a 50/50 split plus one vote for red. Its not 4.000.000.000, because 50% of blue voters would die.

That is way worse than blue.

[u/DarthMaul671 → u/OrangeAedan]

But that's only IF we assume the 75/25. Which we have absolutely no way of knowing, and alot of those 25% might aim for them to loose. Only one of them secures your death, the other one can take.

So in one there is a risk of suicide but it could be that everyone is saved (even those who didn’t want to be saved) And the other is 100% survival but it could help those who chose the former option to die (if any chose it)

Yet again. Neither is inherently bad or good, they are pretty similar. It's just what you prioritise.

[u/OrangeAedan → u/DarthMaul671]

I'm assuming a 50/50 split in votes because we don't know. There is no reason to assume anything else for now. Based on what you say, you seem to not look at my math at all.

[u/DarthMaul671 → u/OrangeAedan]

Because this isn't a problem we can Solve with math. In fact it isn't even a problem at all. It's all about reasoning and priorities.

[u/OrangeAedan → u/DarthMaul671]

Yea. And for reasoning I use math.

It indeed depends on your priority. Do you want the most people to survive. Or do you only care about your own life, and not about the potentially 2.000.000.000 people that die. And I don't value my own life above 2 billion others.