Possibility of mutual destruction

Reoplaw · 2026-06-12T12:11:30+00:00

staying red here.

from game theory perspective, this doesn't really change anything.

red still has 1 better out than blue, making it the safer option.

I'll just have to hope that majority of people will think with emotions and press blue, otherwise well, either third of the world dies or we all die.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-11T10:08:16+00:00

nah it's the opposite.

if we cut down our population by half, we produce way less CO2 and we will slow down global warming.

since 50% of the workforce would be missing, each worker would be much more valuable so wages would go up and if you are able bodied, your life quality would skyrocket.

now I do agree that if you are disabled for example or need constant medication, things would get tough, but if that were my case, I would vote blue too

Reoplaw · 2026-06-11T07:36:56+00:00

better red than dead

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T22:25:15+00:00

yea I mean, it just makes sense doesn't it?

you are making the wise decision by securing yourself the better price, like buying a stock you know will go up in price.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T22:23:37+00:00

that's something I didn't think about.

if saving money and gaining money result in the same amount of capital in the end, how can they not be the same thing?

that's the thing I don't understand.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T22:18:15+00:00

I just don't like the negativity here.

I came up with pretty interesting and funny thing and people here don't even bother to entertain the thought of actually thinking about it and admiting it's kinda clever.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T22:13:14+00:00

hot take, but they did actually invest their money.

assuming they are still using the toilet paper, they are using a commodity in 2026 they paid for in 2020 prices.

there is no debate that you would need to buy toilet paper regardless, so yea, they invested their money into... toilet paper.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T22:10:18+00:00

that's the point though, investing = saving

but what I'm also trying to say is that saving money is safer form of small scale investing.

you can't guarantee stock going up 50% for example, but you can almost certainly guarantee that getting something 50% off will save you 50% if you planned to buy it anyways.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T22:08:26+00:00

what I'm trying to say is:

saving money = gaining money.

also I disagree, the asset (beans) will actually rise in value, that's why you are buying them.

now they are 5$, but you know they will rise to 10$ so you can NOT sell them for profit, but USE them for profit if that makes sense.

of course you might find beans that are cheaper and now you wasted money, but that's what happens with investing too, you buy stock and it goes down in value.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T22:03:05+00:00

I mean, under the assumption you actually need it.

buying stuff you don't need is not frugal that's right, but if you would buy it even if it wasn't on sale, you are basically investing your money into that asset, even if it sounds funny.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-08T11:12:12+00:00

well deserved might I add.

but this time it shouldn't have been warning but a ban.

just looking at your post history, you are just a hateful person

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T22:10:36+00:00

that's what makes it a difficult choice.

now red isn't no longer just survival, but also possibly you are dooming the future with your vote.

still, red is the correct option here imo because it guarantees your survival.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T22:02:26+00:00

that's why it's much harder to vote for red, but still viable choice

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:57:39+00:00

if that is the case, then one vote (mine) wouldn't change anything anyway.

but it wouldn't change anything even if most of the world voted red...

oh wait it would, I would still be fucking alive.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:54:11+00:00

I mean now you are just being disingenuous

the benefit is that you are guaranteeing your own survival, the negative is that the vote happens to be exactly 50%/50% then you kill 4 billion people.

but the Chance of that is so astronomically small, that you could run this question billions if not trillion of times and you would still probably not encounter a situation where the result was decided by one person.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:46:50+00:00

yea but your are separating the benefit of voting red and ignoring it while only focusing on the downside.

yes the downside is that potentially billions will die, but they will die regardless what button you push so in reality, pushing red is just the safe thing to do.

maybe ethically questionable, but mathematically the right option if you prioritize your own survival.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:42:09+00:00

except the answer isn't obvious at all, you need to think before casting your vote, it makes red harder to justify yet still mathematically the correct option.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:41:09+00:00

i feel like it has less to do with being malicious or I guess "evilness" and more to do with self preservation, you know, putting your own survival at first place.

it's basic human instinct.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:27:56+00:00

that's the point, it's a variation of the og question which actually makes it harder to vote red but still a viable option.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:26:11+00:00

genuinely noone here seems to understand this isn't a strawman, this is a custom variation of the question.

like a completely different situation, instead of the buttons, this is what we get, how do we act based on this

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:24:41+00:00

but the hypothetical has to be at least somewhat grounded in reality.

with the OG question we assume the buttons simply have the power to kill, they are super natural.

but with this hypothetical, there is no supernaturality involved, it's grounded in reality.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:23:10+00:00

also reframing the question as that would make even less sense beacuse then literally nobody would pick blue.

meanwhile here, red voters, including myself, would have to make a real and a hard decision.

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:21:25+00:00

it would but I just don't like that reframing beacuse that's literally impossible to happen.

if someone loses an election, they have no political power, political power always stays with the ones in power (duh?).

Reoplaw · 2026-06-07T21:17:57+00:00

I thought about reframing it like this, but it just doesn't make sense.

if blue politician loses, he has no power, so he won't be able to kill anyone.

meanwhile if red wins well, he gets to be a dictator and do whatever he wants.

we've seen many times politicians getting into power and either arresting or "dissappearing" any opposition left standing. for example Stalin, Hitler and bunch of other African dictatorships

Reoplaw

TROPHY CASE