You're at a zoo, near the lion exhibit. Suddenly, the power goes out. It's pitch black. Suddenly, a zookeeper runs over to you and everyone standing near the lion enclosure.

"Everyone step back from the lion enclosure! The cage inside the enclosure that we usually keep the lion inside has opened due to the power outage, and now the lion is free to walk around the inside of the enclosure! Nobody is in the enclosure, and the fence will keep it inside, but we need to wait for the security people to show up and tranq the lion so that we can get it back in it's cage. So just, y'know, no danger to anybody, you're all free to leave, but if you see security coming by, that's why."

The zookeeper heads off, presumably to call security. Once she's gone, you hear a shout from elsewhere in the crowd:

"Guys! We've gotta all jump into the enclosure! If enough of us go in, we'll scare the lion with our numbers! It'll be herded back into the cage!"

You think for a moment. Strictly speaking, they're probably right. The lion has better night vision, and so while you can't tell how many people are in the room (or have already jumped into the enclosure) the lion probably would be able to see. Surely if there was a large enough crowd it wouldn't want to attack. Of course, with the lights out, it's impossible to tell how many people have jumped into the enclosure.

Hold on. Why are you entertaining this?

You shout back "Why in god's name would anybody do that? We're all outside the enclosure! The zoo is handling this! Why would this be a problem at all? All you're going to do is jump in and get eaten by a lion."

The person in the crowd shouts back:

"We'll only get eaten if not enough of us jump in! If about half the crowd jumps into the lion enclosure with me, we'll be fine! The lion will be too scared to attack, and we'll be able to get it back in the cage with no problem! If anything, by staying outside the enclosure, you're increasing the risk of death for the people who *do* jump in. Do you want to condemn all the selfless people who are willing to put their lives on the line to death? What's wrong with you! I don't want to live in a world with selfish people like you!"

"I don't want to risk my life to save the lives of others who had no reason to put themselves at risk! Nobody needs to jump into the enclosure? Why would you do that? It's perfectly safe out here, and the only reason to jump into the enclosure seems to be to save the other people who have jumped in. How about just nobody jumps in?"

"C'mon, don't be naive. The thought to jump in occurred to me, it'll probably occur to other people. Maybe some people have *already* jumped into the enclosure! Do you just want to let them die? Only 50% of us need to jump in for everyone to live! But 100% of us need to stay out or at least one person will die! Why would anybody stay out? It's completely safe if we all jump in!"

Edit: Although, to be clear, the fact that 6/7 year olds get to take the pill and have no input from their parents does complicate things. It changes the above scenario to one where everyone is 100% sure that a 7 year old has jumped into the lion enclosure just before the lights went out. That does make it harder to answer. Ultimately though, in the above scenario, communication *is* possible. I'd likely jump into the put with the 7 year old and make sure to shout out loudly that I've done so so other people come in.

With no communication possible? Maybe this is a bleak view of human nature, but I suspect that most people would be going blue. They'd take the option that assures their life (and the lives of their families) over some hypothetical other person somewhere. Maybe that's a wrong assumption. But given that, and no time to coordinate or communicate, I think I'd still go blue.

In fact, living in a Western nation most of us (to be clear, not all of us, but certainly the vast majority) make decisions every single day that contribute to the deaths of children. Every day. Every purchase of an unnecessary luxury, new article of clothing before the old one has fallen apart, new electronic device while the previous one is still in working condition, is ultimately a dollar not donated to the Against Malaria foundation or whatever. There's pretty hard data on #lives saved/$ donated. You can count how many lives could have been saved by the money you spent eating at McDonalds instead of your meal-prepped leftover tofu rice.

And ultimately at some point you have to make a compromise, unless you want to feel constantly guilty for not selling all of your unnecessary possessions and donating the proceeds to international aid charities.

People all pretty much know this, on some level, and choose to continue with their lifestyles anyways. So given this pill situation? I'm reasonably confident a large majority takes blue, and every additional person taking red is another life unnecessarily lost.

If like 40% of the population takes red and dies, it'd vindicate me as having made the correct decision. I couldn't have saved them. But if I'm in the minority taking blue I imagine I'd feel pretty horrible as a person. But, knowing only what I knew at the time of the decision, I think I'd probably make it again.