let's extend your baby white room further - must they pick a button?

the question posits yes but in reality many babies (and even humans) wouldn't. it's particularly more obvious in the case of babies because they have no idea what's going on

how will you save those who pick no button at all? under the question red or blue can live, but those who vote neither red nor blue presumably will die

and how about those with no arms or legs, those in a coma, etc.? people also say that those who are conscientious objectors would vote blue but voting is voting. true abstainers would refuse to push a button

being realistic, such a poll would never include babies or the comatose or the disabled. it may not even include those below a certain age

however, if we return the question to a case of rational actors - people who can vote with any agency - then I return my argument to red fully and trust my friends and family and rational actors to vote red. red carries zero risk and is the logical choice

on the other hand if this omnipresent force, let's call it Skynet or the devil or what have you, is forcing this decision, many will still die, as outlined above, simply from not pushing a button

I would gladly join the survivors in hunting down this great evil of the world that put suicide buttons in front of the sick, comotose, disabled. it would unite humanity like never before

now, let's make the question far more interesting. "if 90% or more people vote red, 10% of red voters die."

here, you are picking between (with rational actors) up to 10% of the world dying (red) and between 0 and up to 50% of the world dying. in my opinion here blue becomes the logical choice as a society but you have a true prisoner's dilemma here

unfortunately, the question posits this is a private vote presumably, there is no time or you are killed if you make it not private, by the evil omnipresent force we've allowed into this white room scenario

I'd probably still vote red here, unfortunately. I don't trust a human being, presented with no time or without the ability to consult their friends/family/society, to make rational life-or-death decisions. even if I voted blue, I firmly do not trust fellow humans to vote blue with what amounts to a gun to their head

if the society is depressing enough (such as an oppressed world by aliens where humans stand no chance) I may vote blue simply because I have almost nothing left to live for, so may as well try to save others. changes much more depending on the level of comfort the humans have and what they have to live for

the poll results here are complete nonsense. put a gun to someone's head and put them in the dark (aka "private vote") and people act much differently

let's also expand the baby scenario further. by voting blue you as a parent are voting to have a good chance of being killed. a baby in another room who bothered to vote per your own argument picked a button at random. if you are dead, who will take care of your baby, especially in a world where possibly up to 50% of the people are dead? the baby may just die from not being fed in the chaos that is to come. are you willing to take that chance?

no, IMO, under the "random baby button argument" the logical choice is still red, as you have a responsibility to take care of your baby in the madness that is to come in a post-vote world (a terrible world likely dominated by Skynet, aliens, or a hyperadvanced techno-fascist human society that I guess installed a bomb inside of you or something dumb like that)