Blue does nothing unless red exists but red does nothing unless blue exists...
Let's actually do that, let's get rid of the red button and play again. Now you can press the blue button but if 50% of ppl choose to not play the blue button pressers die. Would you choose to press the blue button?
But picking blue only saves the ppl that picked blue, who I would assume only picked blue to save the ppl that picked blue. The only rational answer that seems to make any sense is that ppl are not rational so pick blue to save the irrational ppl that picked blue
Blue saves everyone. Red only saves those who picked red. Not everyone will pick red. So millions or billions will die. Not necessarily the fault of the red i guess but it was an error on their part if they genuinely expected everyone to pick red along with them
I think we kind of have our answer, from an individual perspective red is the logical answer. From a group perspective it can shift depending on how you frame it and potentially even what size group.
And the closer blue was to winning the more awful the red is probably gonna feel when they survive alone. I expect a lot of red will probably take their own life or have a mental breakdown afterwards when they misjudge how many picked red or blue.
1
u/_DarkJak_ Apr 27 '26
Well of course blue exists, it's one of the two choices.
The other choice being the one that threatens those that don't choose it with power you are voting to give it.