Blue vs red button debate
I found a very interesting logical debate. At least it is designed to feel like a logic puzzle, but it’s actually a values elicitation test. It reveals what you optimise for, not how well you reason.
Red button guarantees your survival, but only yours.
Blue button saves everyone if more than 50% voters pick this option. If not, they die.
I see red as the „safe” option - definite outcome, no gamble. However, if majority chooses to self-preserve themselves they are the winners, ones that live while others die. But does this make them complicit in whatever % of humanity dying? Everyone knows the rule upfront and choosing blue means agreeing on the possibility of dying if they fall short of the 50% mark. Total possible death toll is directly proportional to their choice. Blue voters who fall short are as guilty as red voters. Why would anyone choose blue then?
The answer is already visible in what humans have built. Not as proof that blue is correct, but as evidence that enough people, across enough generations, kept choosing it anyway - Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine in 1955 and refused to patent it meaning forfeiting an estimated $7 billion so that every child on earth could access it freely, expecting nothing in return.
Every hospital ever built was a blue button. Every sewer system, every vaccine program, every bridge, every legal code. Civilisation itself is the accumulated product of people who found cooperation individually rational, because reputation, reciprocity, and shared outcomes made it so. Not because they were selfless, but because they were smart enough to expand what “self” meant.
The world wasn’t built exclusively by people who pressed blue. Competitive self-interest, conquest, and individual ambition built plenty of it too. But the parts that lasted: the institutions, the infrastructure, the social contracts - those required enough people to accept short-term personal risk for long-term collective return. People who pressed blue before they knew if enough others would follow. Who sometimes fell short and paid for it. Who kept pressing it anyway.
Not out of naivety. Out of a calculated understanding that individual survival inside a collapsing collective is a diminishing prize. Red is internally consistent if survival is your only variable. But humans repeatedly, across cultures and centuries, kept adding variables. Family, community, strangers, future generations. People they’d never meet. Whether that expansion was driven by genuine altruism or enlightened self-interest is almost beside the point. A hospital treats patients regardless of whether it was built by saints or shareholders.
So, would you take a gamble for your values, or play it safe with your life?
Enjoyed the article? Subscribe to my RSS feed :D