Hello, Blue Presser here.

We learn something about humanity based on the results of the poll. It's naive to think that 100% of people will press the red button. Some people will die if red wins. I think pressing red is selfish and violent, in that it can result in the death of human life by their own unwillingness to cooperate.

If we are not willing to work together in order to protect each other then I have a very pessimistic long-term view of our future. If every blue-presser dies, then our average cooperation level will only decrease, and the population will be over-saturated with defectors. I'd rather just go out now then deal the those consequences.

The thing is, all those red button pressers can't see that, for all their exact and flawless reasoning, they have a bias towards individuality, which they see as the only possibility, and we blue button pressers perfectly understand the math and yet we have a bias towards others, and would sacrifice more readily at many situations like this one. This sacrifice is what reds see as "dumb", but natural selection has chosen this because it probably works.

Both sides have a mental bias, and just can't see each other's "reasoning" because of it.

We blues think of reds as selfish, because we can't conceive of anyone not thinking of the worst outcome for others, and being empathetic about it, making it one's own. And they see us as "virtue signalling", or getting some external value of some kind (recognition from peers) because they can't think of any other explanation to justify that behavior, when it is just pure bias towards sacrifice. Sacrifice is just that, giving something without asking nothing, which does not make sense for a red. Reds think we are dumb but society needs a little more blues than reds. Otherwise it probably collapses.

I'm such a proud blue. in fact... ;)

> It's naive to think that 100% of people will press the red button.

Those who press the blue button are trying to save those who press the blue button. If they weren't trying to save each other, they wouldn't have to.

Does that mean that in rayiner's phrasing [1], you'd argue for "cooperating" with the other head shooters?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47913066

Good points, though I think cooperation benefits the ethical outcomes for both sides.

If we all work together to make sure that as many people press the red button as possible, then we can minimize the damage. The problem with the blue campaign is that the outcome gets progressively worse until it gets to the best outcome. 49% mortality is high and terrible unless you are very sure that the red campaign is going to lose. The ethical take on the red side is to minimize blue votes to zero.

You're a single parent. Through divine intervention you know that your 5 year old child has already pressed the red button. Are you going to press the blue button and risk your child becoming an orphan in a selfish and violent world? Or do you sacrifice the lives of billions to save your child from this inconvenience?

>Some people will die if red wins.

Why? The logical conclusion of this game is that everyone presses red. There is no reason to press blue and leave it to chance. The article talks about it, but without further rules it would be absolutely nonsensical to press blue.

Like if there was some additional rule like "oh and if more than 90% press red, everyone dies" or something, it gets more interesting. But as is everyone answering blue is virtue signalling.

>I think pressing red is selfish and violent

Most of humanity is pressing the red button every single day, again and again. From every culture, creed, religion, loads of red button presses.

Why pessimistic? The miracle of capitalism is that it harvests the power of people pursuing their self interest for the greater good. Collectivist systems that rely on everyone sacrifying their self interest for the collectivity failed spectacularly in the past.