There are two ways everyone survives:

1) Everyone chooses red

2) >50% choose blue

Seems a lot easier to get to the "everyone survives" result with blue, and that's what a lot of us would prefer over guaranteeing our own personal safety.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845045)

There are two issues with this framing anyway. First, "subjects humanity to the possibility" makes it sound like it's somehow random, not dependent on other people's choices. And you'd also have to specify that everyone else is being asked the same thing and that if you don't push it and other people do, up to half of the population, they'll die.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845065)

leaving people to freely choose to do something insane is the correct call, hoping that mass insanity will save us all is...well a good cull

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845067)

With your "opt in" framing, the thought process for normal people is, "How likely is it that half of the country would risk their own death to MAYBE protect the people who are stupid/suicidal/sadistic enough to push the button? And based on that, am I willing to risk mine?" – I think I'd have to abstain in that case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845357)

Action vs. inaction also explains why hank scorpio's example elicits more of a "why would anyone possibly push it?" than the red vs. blue. You need the red button in the hypo because you're taking an action by pushing the button. That action could condemn all the blue pushers to death.

So I think that the blue pushers are thinking about each button in terms of the possible consequences to themselves AND other people, and they want to avoid the consequences to others by going for the "save everybody just in case" option. The question is whether you think more than 50% of people have the collective interest in the group that biases their moral calculus against taking actions that hurt others. Blue pushers think that ultimately most people will put themselves at risk to get to the Good Ending; red pushers don't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845451)

jump in the cage or press the red button

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845625)

Too bad this will never happen irl and instead our civilization will just wither and die because all of these useless retards have been enabled to breed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49844927)

Side question: What portion of the world could minimally comprehend the issue? See xo scholarship re people who can't even comprehend and engage with a counterfactual.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49844953)

i think most people would pick blue in this hypo if it were real and death was on the line. red is an easy choice to make when you know this isn't real and just a hypo.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49846225)

any other choice is goybait

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845076)

"But I did have breakfast today"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49846022)

Ran the Blue/Red experiment with three different groups this weekend. Every time:

> Men picked Red

> Women picked Blue

> Women admit they didn’t understand the rules, and all picked Red after having it explained.

Surely there are no broader implications we can draw from this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845150)

It's kinda like getting the vaxx when it first came out if you believed that it actually worked. Like "I'll put this untested thing in my body in order to help Stop the Spread for the most vulnerable among us."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845397)

well, bye

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845621)

if you push red, no risk no reward.

if you push blue, huge risk, and no potential reward.

everyone should push red.

the only reason you would ever pick blue is if you assumed a lot of people were really fucking dumb and would push blue for no good reason and wanted to seriously risk your life as a tiny wee part of an effort to save these idiots.

i'd push red.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845189)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845211)

But in this problem, everyone on Earth is there, and you have to think about what other people are going to do. On the individual level, I guess you could say that everyone who chooses blue is either stupid, suicidal, or sadistic and it's NBD if they die. But people aren't thinking of it like, "why would anyone choose blue?" – they're thinking of it like, "surely some people are going to choose blue, so let's do what we can to make sure we all survive."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845490)

press the blue button and you individually move it 1/4,150,000,000th of the way closer to that line but accept a 50/50 chance of death for doing it.

press the red button.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845497)

This isn't a logic puzzle with a correct answer where you can calculate expected outcome assuming rational actors. (Those are way more fun.)

This ultimately comes down to how you think other people think. If you think the majority of people would say, "let's just band together and make sure no one dies" then you push blue. If your thoughts are more like, "why would anyone choose the one that could kill them?" then you push red.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845517)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845530)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5860807&forum_id=2]#49845560)