u/3_Stokesy

Following this sub for more than 5 minutes demonstrates one thing that is perfectly clear - whether or not you are inclined towards red and blue depends on what you see as a moral default. In the case of red voters, they are inclined to see voting blue as accepting a chance of dying unless over 50% vote blue, or do nothing. Furthermore, blue voters are more likely to see voting red as murdering blue voters if it gets over 50% and the blue button being the option to do nothing.

However, it occured to me recently, that no matter what way you reframe this argument perhaps both are true. Perhaps one can say that no matter whether the button is blue or red, if one has the ability to walk out of the booth they are morally obligated to do so because only then is participation in the question avoidable.

So, what if, as in the scenario, leaving the room is not an option? In this essay, I will argue that, as unsatisfying a conclusion to the discussion as it may be, in the context of a decision made under duress, neither button is a moral obligation.

To understand this I want to tell second-hand an anecdote I heard back at school. This was in a presentation about the utility of language learning but it is relevant here. The speaker was a military translator for the British Army back during the days of the Afghanistan war recounted a tale whereby him and his detachment (I can't remember exactly but perhaps 6 men?) were riding out by helicopter to scout a local village. Whilst there, they came under fire from the Taliban. The speaker was wounded, but recovered, but one of his compatriots was sadly shot dead.

Later, they rescued a nearby farmer and he was asked to translate the conversation. As it turns out, the farmer was the one who fired the bullets. One person died, one could have died and many more could have as a result of his actions, though of course, the Taliban were also threatening him to do it.

Now, put out of mind the argument as to whether or not the British soldiers were invaders and therefore legit targets and whatnot, that's not relevant here. The crux of what I am trying to get to here is that very few people would argue that the farmer has a moral obligation to hold his fire even if it leads to the deaths of more than one others. Sure, if he refused and sacrificed himself one might admire his heroics more, but few would assert that there is an obligation on him to take the hit.

And sure enough, he was not tried for this.

Therefore, I would argue the same circumstances apply here - the red button blue button debate is not a true moral debate because under duress there cannot be a genuinely fair moral decision made. It is natural that some may admire the heroism of blue voters, some may cringe and their self-sacrificial instinct, some may be horrified by red voters willingness to take another life to guarantee their own safety and others may see it as the only logical way through regardless. All are a matter of perspective, there is no morality here.

And before anyone points out that this sounds an awful lot like the Nuremburg defence, yeah I admit it kinda does, but that also misses the point of why the Nuremburg defence doesn't work in the context of the Nazis but does here. On the surface, the Nuremburg defence does actually work, the idea that one can't be held accountable for actions taken with fear for ones own life is a sound principle. The reason it was rejected at Nuremburg, and rightly so, was because the Nazi officers were involved in the very ideological movement that drove the mass killings and were active participants who would have participated even without being forced to do so. The other side of this is they argued that, yes, there is an obligation on soldiers to risk their own lives to prevent harm coming to civilians because a soldier by his duty risks his life for others. I don't think these situations are comparable to everyone on earth having to cast a vote by button.

So in conclusion, there is no moral answer to be found here because morality is about how we choose to act and there is no genuine choice in this situation. What people are really horrified with in this situation is the awful lines of thinking many of us adopt in crisis situations which in the modern western world most of us never have to worry about. As unsatisfying as it is, unless rising up against whatever cruel alien race forced us into the booths, there is no moral answer.

Edit: Afghanistan war not Iraq

Man's dream of achieving flight has been with us for basically as long as we have been a species. I just recently watched the video of Tom Scott Paragliding over Rutland and what surprised me was that the equipment required to do it seemed pretty simple - a large parachute, rigging, a towcable to take off (which isn't even required when there is decent wind) and that was about it. After take-off its just a matter of finding thermal uplifts to maintain height.

It made me wonder - why haven't I heard of medieval or ancient people using this as a method of travel? I personally can't think of anything here that couldn't be made without modern technology.

Also, some of the hobbyists he spoke to were able to travel fair distances doing so in single days, essentially as the crow flies. Especially in mountainous regions, the ability to travel long distances with little regard for terrain where taking off over mountainsides is easier.

Maybe I am being stupid and missing something obvious here, but this seems like this could have been a pretty viable and useful method of travel.

So, does anyone know of any examples of paragliding being used this way in pre-modern times? And if not, why not?

I keep hearing it thrown around that it is easier to convince over 50% of people to vote blue than it would be to get everyone to vote red, so I am here to walk everyone through the statistics of this and show that that is not the case.

First, you need to know that people aren't voting at random. If they were then sure the odds of a 100% red are a lot slimmer than over 50% blue. People are voting based on criteria known only to themselves. Furthermore, the simple number required doesn't matter here because your asking people to vote for completely different things - in one scenario, your trying to get 100% of people to vote to save themselves, in the other your trying to get over 50% of people to risk their lives.

The actual, true odds of either outcome are both unknowable. The fact that 50% blue requires fewer people to achieve is actually completely irrelevant to the odds.

However, if I was to make an educated guess, I would suggest the odds of both outcomes are in the same category of unlikely. If this sounds surprising consider this:

The polling on this topic generally suggests somewhere between a 55% and 65% favourability for blue. However, remember the above point - only blue voters are voting to risk their own lives. The way people vote in a poll when the stakes don't actually apply is going to be very different from when they do, but only for blue voters. Red voters are almost guaranteed to be being honest, Whereas many proclaimed blue voters will not have the strength to take the gamble.

Some will be taken by fear, others will want to press blue but won't be convinced it is a safe choice and see it as throwing their lives away for no reason. And remember, this is an entirely anonymous vote with 0 accountability either way. No social pressure, no need to keep up appearance, you rely solely on an individual's raw conscience.

Never forget humility in the face of death or underestimate the instinct to preserve one's own life. I think that blue could get 30% or even 40% but the idea that over half of humanity is capable of this does not ring true to me.

And on that note, vote red. The more of us who do, the more of us survive.

Hello all,

I have a trip to China in a couple of weeks. Me and my gf will spend 2 weeks travelling around various places. I am a UK citizen and she is a Chinese citizen.

I have read online that foreigners need to register themselves with the police within 24hrs of arrival but that hotels do that automatically. However during the middle part of the trip we will be staying with my Girlfriend's family in Wuhu, Anhui province. The rest of the time, including at the start of our trip we are in hotels.

I was wondering how I go about doing this?

Thanks.