There’s a popular thought experiment that makes the rounds on the internet, but the arguments presented are a false dichotomy between logic and empathy. The best rationale should use both.

The Thought Experiment #

The most referenced link for it seems to be this tweet, but I am unsure if this is the original. At any rate, here is my rewording of it, let’s review:

Everyone on earth must take an independent, secret vote by pressing either a blue or red button. The vote happens immediately, so there is no time to discuss and reach consensus beforehand. The majority color (≥50%) wins.

• If BLUE wins, then everyone survives, the votes remain anonymous.
• If RED wins, then the votes are revealed and all blue voters die.

Which button would you press: 🔴 or 🔵?

Since we have nothing better to do, let’s overanalyze it now.

Red’s Steelman: Calculated Logic #

Since the problem is hyperbole, it is easy to assume it is meant to be interpreted as a mathematical puzzle. If we look at it from a purely logical perspective, voting Red is the only sane choice.

There are only two outcomes when voting Red:

• If BLUE wins, nobody dies, so nothing happens, regardless of our Red vote.
• If RED wins, we are part of the surviving group.

No matter the outcome, Red voters survive, so it would only make sense to choose it. Furthermore, everyone can deduce the same logic, therefore it is a distinct possibility that even if Red wins, nobody dies, because nobody voted Blue.

In conclusion, voting Red is the only logical option, and everyone should!

Blue’s Steelman: Pacifism and Empathy #

The arguments from Blue come from a sense of morality, usually a flavor of one of the following:

• If RED wins, people might die, and I want to avoid bloodshed. Nobody needs to die!
• I have faith in humanity that most kind people would vote Blue. Therefore, I also vote Blue to help them succeed, even though I know I could guarantee my own safety by going Red.
• If I vote Red, but not everyone figured out the logic, I would feel responsible for the death of Blue voters. Therefore, I risk killing myself in order to avoid living with guilt.

This is a more risky approach that might not make sense if you are adamant on living your life through logic, but is nonetheless understandable and admirable if your goal is to live life in the most moral way.

Red’s Rebuttal: Why You Gotta Be A Hero? #

Red voters can argue that what Blue voters actually want is to virtue signal. There is no need for all this song and dance about empathy and doing the right thing by putting yourself at risk when in reality there is no risk to be had if everyone just votes Red.

Moreover, Blue voters are actually doing emotional blackmail: If as a Red voter, you care about the lives of others, you will have to decide whether taking the “correct” answer is worth killing for. If you decide it isn’t, and jump ship, there is still a chance Blue loses, and then you’ll die too, for nothing!

Blue’s Rebuttal: The Only Danger Is You #

Both paths have the possible outcome that nobody dies. However, Red needs unanimous consensus, while Blue only needs a 50% majority. So Red voters are the ones who cause more harm, because the scenario where nobody votes Blue is a statistical possibility but realistically impossible (Have you seen the stuff going on in world politics?!).

Voting Blue offers a safety net to account for disagreements, while voting Red condemns the other side for thinking differently.

The Pragmatic Approach #

Red wins by pure logic, Blue wins by pure empathy, but I think the best solution is to make it logical to be empathic.

Thinking outside the box a little, how can we know this election will only take place once? The problem is worded such that Red is the optimal personal outcome, just like the Prisoner’s Dilemma¹. However, we have seen that if you are to repeat that game, altruism is the better strategy in the long run, even if all you care about is maximizing your own score. (Side note, I recommend checking out The Evolution of Trust² for an interactive game on this topic.)

Assuming the game does get repeated, we can observe the outcome doesn’t change much, whichever side wins first would win always:

• If BLUE wins, nothing happens, we don’t know who the Red voters are, only how many. Blue voters gambled on a majority for the purpose of preservation, it would be illogical to switch side to Red after already having a majority. If anything, I could see Red voters moving over to Blue since the benefit of the doubt is Red voters just didn’t want to die as opposed to being psychos. Now that they see it is safe to vote Blue, can do so. If they still have doubts and remain Red to be safe, it’s fine because Blue has a majority without their help.

• If RED wins, Blue will never win again because their entire voter base… died. No Red voter would even try going for Blue now, since they weren’t enough in the first round, it is illogical to think there is a chance for it next time, given the remaining population is all Red. But since everyone is now Red team, there isn’t even a reason to go Blue, since everyone being Red was the happy case in the logical reasoning of Red in the first place.

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether the game gets repeated or not! The first round is enough to seal the fate of all future elections. Let’s instead look at the outcomes after the election:

• If you either vote Blue and win or vote Red and lose, nothing happens. Good outcome for you.
• If you vote Blue and lose, you die, which is a shame, but at least you aren’t part of the third case.
• If you vote Red and win, you doom your entire society! Let’s see why…

A world full of only Red voters would soon collapse:

• You would lose up to 49% of the population, the higher the number, the harder it will be to adjust the production chains, the economy, etc.
• If you were a good person, you now don’t know if you can trust anyone anymore. The Blue voters were the ones more likely to help and collaborate with you, and they are gone. Chances are your remaining goodness will be further exploited by the evil side of Red voters. Your remaining interactions with others will always be subject to careful risk calculation, and whatever faith in humanity you had will soon erode under attrition.
• If you were a bad person, you now find yourself without the “Blue suckers” to leech from. The people with high altruism were the ones making the world a better place (or in your case, more convenient), by doing things at their expense for the greater good. With them gone, you either need to do the work yourself, or convince some other Red voter to pick up the slack.

Using logic over feelings seemed like a good idea at first (look how smart you are, dear!), but instead ended you up in a dystopia. Or, if your initial vote came from a place of cynicism, as in you doubted that Blue could win because the world is a horrible place (and you were right!), and all you cared for was ensuring you live, now you just made the world even more horrible by increasing the ratio of bad to good people overall, great job!

Conclusion #

Voting Red is logical, and you will come out unharmed, but after the election is finished, you will have learned more information about the (remaining?) society you now get to keep participating in. I argue a world where individualism and survival is the primary focus is not a pleasant one to live in, so you might as well risk it now.

Regardless if you like, or hate, or support, or profit from others, the better outcome overall is to vote Blue. It seems that most social media polls side with Blue, so at least there is hope…