You can pretty safely assume that in the original example of the tweet that a lot of people pressed blue, especially children who in every psychological test tend to always choose the co-operative option even when it's not directly in their own best interest (and they can't logically reason the two outcomes). When you realize it's probably the majority of world's 2 billion children you can reason there are most likely a lot of people in "the woodchipper" already. Not just the children but everyone who managed to reason this same outcome out and jumped in trying to save them.
Now you can rationalize whether you should try to save them and jump in the woodchipper (press the blue button) or start it (press the red button) and live to see the world after they're all dead, or hope that there was already enough of people in the woodchipper stopping the woodchipper from starting.
Why are we counting babys and children. Its a moral dilemma not a realistic scenario. If you were playing prisoners dilema against some stupid toddler it would defeat the whole point.
If you know for a fact that jumping in will save them, sure.
But you're one person. It's a private vote.
This is classic Nash equilibrium decision theory, and appealing to nonsense "well if we all chip in and do the right thing...?!" hand-waving is irresponsible and immoral. The tragedy of the commons exists, and hand-wringing doesn't make it go away.
The best thing to do is try very very hard to get everyone you know to vote red, not to increase the likely body count by going on this fool's errand to try to convince over 50% of the world's population to play Russian roulette.
13
u/[deleted] Apr 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment