The comparison to insurance appears apt. But real insurance policies vary in value. For some the blue fees may not be worth avoiding the red dangers, whilst for others the scale of the red dangers is so large you would always pay the blue.
How would our decisions change if only 1/2 of the blue pressers died when red majority was triggered? Or 1/4, 1/100 or 1/10^6? Or any other model of similar games, e.g. with a green button which acts as abstaining from the vote - no risk, no reward.
So drawing conclusions from these style of theorical problems risks not paying attention to the real life, complex variables.
Perhaps the most interesting bit of the debate is the personal responses individuals give, rather than which hypothetical solution is mathematically or philosophically more correct?
That's an interesting way to change the terms of the question. And you are right, everyone has a different threshold for when a premium becomes too expensive.
I suggest an alternative that may be more natural though.
We can change the percentage share Blue has to reach. 10% Blue saves everyone feels very, very different from 90%. Rather than a binary answer, you would say at what cutoff point you would no longer be willing to press blue. This keeps the focus on the outcome of the vote.
Somehow this more general reformulation sounds like a question I may have heard of before. (Found it. It becomes an example of a Threshold Public Goods Game.)
Ultimately, I prefer exploring the ethical dimension. The models / narratives people use to explain their choices are more interesting to me than measuring their "Altruism Index"
The comparison to insurance appears apt. But real insurance policies vary in value. For some the blue fees may not be worth avoiding the red dangers, whilst for others the scale of the red dangers is so large you would always pay the blue.
How would our decisions change if only 1/2 of the blue pressers died when red majority was triggered? Or 1/4, 1/100 or 1/10^6? Or any other model of similar games, e.g. with a green button which acts as abstaining from the vote - no risk, no reward.
So drawing conclusions from these style of theorical problems risks not paying attention to the real life, complex variables.
Perhaps the most interesting bit of the debate is the personal responses individuals give, rather than which hypothetical solution is mathematically or philosophically more correct?
That's an interesting way to change the terms of the question. And you are right, everyone has a different threshold for when a premium becomes too expensive.
I suggest an alternative that may be more natural though.
We can change the percentage share Blue has to reach. 10% Blue saves everyone feels very, very different from 90%. Rather than a binary answer, you would say at what cutoff point you would no longer be willing to press blue. This keeps the focus on the outcome of the vote.
Somehow this more general reformulation sounds like a question I may have heard of before. (Found it. It becomes an example of a Threshold Public Goods Game.)
Ultimately, I prefer exploring the ethical dimension. The models / narratives people use to explain their choices are more interesting to me than measuring their "Altruism Index"