@Mateusz5875@MrBeast this is what you repost and then advocate for the death of human lives, there isn't a feasible argument you can construct because it's impossible to justify killing vs saving billions
you try so hard to justify why billions should die, how about trying break free from your sigma omega alpha male kill everyone mindset and embrace the fact that you're a human not some bureaucrat machine and you cannot make a choice about billions of lives bc of "WELL ITS THE DOMINANT STRATEGY"
Okay let's see since you want to act so pretentious
If "everyone picks Red so everyone survives" is the goal, then picking Blue achieves that same result with zero risk of accidentally killing half the population.
If Red wins, you survive into a post-apocalyptic wasteland where 4 billion people are gone, meaning the power grids, food supplies, and medical systems you rely on will likely vanish instantly. And not mentioning the fact that you will be living in a world full of people who would sacrifice each other because it's the "rational decision"
@choffstein Your profile banner preaches a love for the planet, yet your logic treats half of its inhabitants as a calculated sacrifice for your own safety. You aren't choosing an optimal strategy, you're choosing to be a parasite on the hope and trust of the people you claim to "love".
@tyler_tone The "Red Button" isn't a test of logic or something that should be over analyzed via mathematics. It’s a mirror. And if all we see in that mirror is our own survival at the cost of everyone else’s children, then maybe we should stop asking why the world is in this state.
@mhartl A truly rational human understands that if everyone adopts your "optimal" cynicism, we lose the very humanity that makes surviving worth it in the first place.
@WiseAbdo @OcktoJL@waitbutwhy you frame human life as a game theory variable, if you’re only "moral" when the threshold is guaranteed, you aren't a person with value. please genuinely think of what you're saying.