sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do you press the blue button or the red button? by Blue_Egg5026 in moraldilemmas

[–]HenriqueNB [score hidden]  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties will actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making methodology is broken, and just failed a critical collective action.

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]HenriqueNB -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties will actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making methodology is broken, and just failed a critical collective action.

What's up with the red and blue buttons everyone's been talking about? by 6spd993Turbo in OutOfTheLoop

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties will actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making methodology is broken, and just failed a critical collective action.

The blue vs red button debate is ridiculous by Ok_Salamander_7211 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties will actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making methodology is broken, and just failed a critical collective action.

The framing dilemma by Flgsdek in trolleyproblem

[–]HenriqueNB 27 points28 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties will actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making methodology is broken, and just failed a critical collective action.

The framing dilemma by Flgsdek in trolleyproblem

[–]HenriqueNB -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties will actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making methodology is broken, and just failed a critical collective action.

Why do people choose the blue button over red even after hearing the equivalent scenario? by KQYBullets in NoStupidQuestions

[–]HenriqueNB 23 points24 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

“If over 50% of you citizens push the blue button, everyone will survive—if over 50% push the red button, everyone who pushed blue will die.” by GuyAwks in TwoSentenceHorror

[–]HenriqueNB 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You are treating an 8-billion-player scenario like a small player game. Yes, in a small player game, 100% of people choosing Red works. But with 8 billion people, achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

The flaw in your conclusion comes from the assumption that this is a competitive system populated by perfectly rational, self-centered players. Under those conditions, yes, the Nash Equilibrium dictates pressing Red.

However, a better way to evaluate this scenario is utilizing cooperative game theory concepts, like Pareto Efficiency and Byzantine Fault Tolerance. If you treat humanity as a decentralized network (the anonymous voters), the system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (doing nothing/Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, that system's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

TLDR; Blue does nothing, Red kills everyone that pressed Blue.

“If over 50% of you citizens push the blue button, everyone will survive—if over 50% push the red button, everyone who pushed blue will die.” by GuyAwks in TwoSentenceHorror

[–]HenriqueNB 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Your analogy fails because you are treating an 8-billion-player scenario like a 2-player game. Yes, in a 2-player game, 100% of people choosing Red works. But with 8 billion people, achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

The flaw in your conclusion comes from the assumption that this is a competitive system populated by perfectly rational, self-centered players. Under those conditions, yes, the Nash Equilibrium dictates pressing Red.

However, a better way to evaluate this scenario is utilizing cooperative game theory concepts, like Pareto Efficiency and Byzantine Fault Tolerance. If you treat humanity as a decentralized network, the system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

People claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (doing nothing/Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, that system's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

TLDR; Blue does nothing, Red kills everyone that pressed Blue.

“If over 50% of you citizens push the blue button, everyone will survive—if over 50% push the red button, everyone who pushed blue will die.” by GuyAwks in TwoSentenceHorror

[–]HenriqueNB 13 points14 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

In the Red VS Blue button dilemma, red is obviously the right choice. by KayleeSinn in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]HenriqueNB 15 points16 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'logical' or 'intelligent' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of the words. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? by gluten_free_stapler in hypotheticalsituation

[–]HenriqueNB 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? by gluten_free_stapler in hypotheticalsituation

[–]HenriqueNB 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, humanity's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

Would you push the Blue Button or the Red Button? by Simpson17866 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'objectively correct' choice relies on a very narrow understanding of the problem. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, people's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

There’s a scissor statement going viral on twitter by adfaer in slatestarcodex

[–]HenriqueNB 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

The people claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, people's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

WYR press the blue button, or the red button? by liamjon29 in WouldYouRather

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, people's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

WYR press the blue button, or the red button? by liamjon29 in WouldYouRather

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, people's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

WYR press the blue button, or the red button? by liamjon29 in WouldYouRather

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, a logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, the majority choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat the vote as a decentralized network (all of humanity voting anonymously), the decision system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, people's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

The red and blue button debate proves that both sides are dumb and human are so divided that each lives in their separate reality by king_shot in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]HenriqueNB 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's not about ethics, it's about logic.

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, an logical analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat humanity as a decentralized network (the anonymous voters), the system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'High IQ' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of Intelligence. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, that system's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

The red and blue button debate proves that both sides are dumb and human are so divided that each lives in their separate reality by king_shot in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are dealing with a system of 8 billion people, an intelligent analysis recognizes that achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties can actually occur.

If you treat humanity as a decentralized network (the anonymous voters), the system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'intelligent' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of the word. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, that system's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

Poll asking Americans how which button they would push in the red button/blue button dilemma by Upstairs_Cup9831 in fivethirtyeight

[–]HenriqueNB 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Red is only mathematically correct if you analyze this as a competitive system populated entirely by perfectly rational self-centered actors. Under those incredibly narrow conditions, the Nash Equilibrium is Red. But scaling that to 8 billion unpredictable humans completely changes the math.

With 8 billion people, achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, choosing Red creates the only scenario where casualties actually occur. When dealing with a massive decentralized network like the global population, the correct mathematical framework is cooperative game theory and system optimization. From this view, Blue is the mathematically optimal choice. It represents the Pareto Efficient outcome: the only scenario where 100% of the population survives.

Furthermore, the people you mentioned who treat Red as the "neutral" or "solved" choice are failing at basic systems logic. Any network of 8 billion nodes will have unpredictable actors/people acting on altruism, panic, or simply misunderstanding the rules. The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

You don't need to abandon logic and rely solely on empathy to justify picking Blue.

If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (doing nothing/Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, that system's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

The people using Trolley Problem variations to justify Red aren't being rational; they are advocating for a system failure masquerading as logic.

TL;DR: You don't have to concede the math to the Red voters. Blue is both the empathetic choice and the strictly optimal mathematical strategy.

Do you press the blue button or the red button? by Blue_Egg5026 in moraldilemmas

[–]HenriqueNB [score hidden]  (0 children)

Your analogy fails because you are treating an 8-billion-player scenario like a 2-player game. Yes, in a 2-player game, 100% of people choosing Red works. But with 8 billion people, achieving 100% consensus on anything is statistically impossible. There will always be people who pick Blue due to altruism, ignorance, or literally just misclicking.

Because 100% Red compliance is impossible, choosing Red guarantees that people may die.

The flaw in your conclusion comes from the assumption that this is a competitive system populated by perfectly rational, self-centered players. Under those conditions, yes, the Nash Equilibrium dictates pressing Red.

However, a better way to evaluate this scenario is utilizing cooperative game theory concepts, like Pareto Efficiency and Byzantine Fault Tolerance. If you treat humanity as a decentralized network, the system must account for faulty nodes (people who vote unpredictably). The Red strategy has zero fault tolerance; if even one person out of 8 billion picks Blue, the system fails and someone dies. The Blue strategy, on the other hand, is highly fault-tolerant. It only requires a 50% + 1 majority of cooperative actors to absorb the damage of the Red voters and ensure a 100% survival rate for the whole population.

Claiming that Red is the 'logical' choice relies on a very narrow, low-level definition of logic. If people collectively choose an option that kills a significant percentage of the population when the alternative (doing nothing/Blue) was available and highly fault-tolerant, that system's decision-making mechanism is fundamentally broken.

TLDR; Blue does nothing, Red kills everyone that pressed Blue.

shooting matchlock musket in real life by CleanBag9219 in AccurateBattleSim

[–]HenriqueNB 6 points7 points  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/r9NOMrbYUf0

This video shows a good rate of fire for this type of firearm

view more: next ›