u/Catsanddoges

As an individual voter, in the red-blue vote rationally and from a utilitarian perspective it would make theoretically make sense to vote red* (explain why not absolute later).

In the event of a red-blue voting press, in the absolute best case scenario of each voter voting based on a coin-flip, the odds of you flipping the vote is still one in thousands (still worth it from a utilitarian perspective). However, even in the event of a tiny, tiny bias (which is all but guaranteed) where people vote instead of randomly with a 50-50 bias instead with a 50.1-49.9 bias, the odds you flip the vote drop to essentially zero, and a tiny bias either way makes the vote worthless. This means in a realistic scenario where there is even a tiny bias to either side, your chance of flipping the vote is at best one in trillions.

In the scenario, there are essentially 3 ways your vote could fall. For the sake of convenience (doesn't really matter anyway) we will just assume the voting population is 8 billion and one, with those unable or unwilling to vote being assigned randomly. The three ways are: Majority red, doesn't flip it. Majority Blue, doesn't flip it. Exactly tied, flips either either way. As an individual rational voter, the ONLY way blue has value is if you flip the vote. The expected outcomes are: If majority red and vote red, then live, if blue then die. If majority blue vote red or blue and live. If vote is flipped vote red to live and vote blue to save 4 billion lives. However, assuming there is a TINY, even below one percent, bias in either direction the third scenario is essentially irrelevant.

Assuming a perfect coin flip (almost certainly not true), then the odds would be around 1 in 1^-5, where it would be worth it with those odds if you just cared about maximizing survival. However, assuming a still UNREALISTICALLY low bias of 0.1%, (eg 49.9 to 50.1 bias, could be either direction) the odds of an exact tie end up being 1 in 10^6953, where the expected proportion of times your vote will flip will be essentially nothing and the lives blue saves, even at 4 billion, are on average negligible.

Because of this, from the perspective of an individual voter there are 2 outcomes that have any realistic chance of happening: Red majority and Blue majority. You can use either perspective of if everyone starts dead or alive, it doesn't change the math. Saying everyone starts dead, in a Red majority Red saves 1 life and Blue saves 0 lives. In a blue majority, Red saves 1 life and Blue saves 1 life. The scenario of a vote flip save 1 life with Red and 4 billion and 1 with Blue, but the probability of this happening are so astronomically small even with 4 billion this can be treated as negligible. Regardless of the odds of Blue vs Red winning, unless the odds of Blue winning are essentially 100%, Red will always have a higher expected value and from the perspective of an individual valuing all life equally and unable to communicate they should choose Red.

Still, this is scenario where all people acting rationally is a disadvantage. Given a significant portion of the children and elderly will be voting randomly, Red will always kill at a minimum hundreds of millions even assuming all adults are fully rational and agree on red. By contrast, if people believe blue makes them feel good or believes the odds they flip are better, then a blue victory could save everyone. In a rational society in a vote of no communication Red should win and in that situation you should vote Red. In a real society in aggregate people should vote in blue, and it is good for society if most people act irrationally, but without communication it is always rational and always has the odds of saving the most lives to vote Red.

I've seen wildly varying sentiment for what would happen in a scenario where red wins, but it is middling in terms of how close it is for most of society. Lets say 60 percent of the population chooses Red, and that infants / comatose or those who refuse to choose are assigned at random. This proportion would then mean a slight skew demographically for adults, where more of them would have the capacity for choice (as opposed to very young and very old) and so to offset the proportion globally perhaps around 65 or 70 percent of adults survive, with infants and very old staying close to 50 or 55 percent.

Then, different regions would have significant differences in choice. While not trying to be generalizing and over-attributing, I think there is a fair argument to be made that Western, individualist nations and cultures would likely have a higher survival rate compared to communist societies or ones that have a greater emphasis on community, such as China or Korea, although the exact percentage difference would essentially be guesswork, but lets say the overall working adult survival rate in the US was 70 percent, with 65 percent for children and elderly.

Assuming people trusted fully what they were told about the buttons, then I believe most nuclear capable countries and their leaders (Trump, Putin, Kim) would probably pick red and survive, and with key leadership intact a direct subsequent nuclear war is unlikely. Military chain of command probably remains in most developed nations, although there would certainly be extreme anarchy.

There would likely be an immediate collapse in international trade and a breakdown of certain specialized industrial processes, but much of this would only have a direct impact in coming months. Focusing on the United States for the rest of this, martial law would likely be declared and immediately after the event I find it very implausible that the military collapses, instead they probably manage to institute "temporary" martial law.

Once the situation calms slightly the government would first probably move to a ration based system, based on the Great Depression and WW2, and complex luxuries such as Mega Yachts would probably be forcibly halted and a portion of the survival population would be drafted into manufacturing and many plants forcibly reopened. While there would be opposition and pushback, if immediate training and subsequent production was restarted industrial necessities and supply chains could likely be kept.

If a primarily capitalist system is maintained, instead of a pure military command economy, then taxes on the rich would significantly increase and assets of the blues, such as cars, would likely be recycled for complex and foreign manufacturing parts. AI data centers and non-essential resource consumers would likely be shut down, and with a smaller power draw from less people certain power plants would begin the process of shutting down.

I think that the loss of professions or knowledge of industries is unlikely as there are many formalized and systematic processes for training new workers in most essential industries, and temporarily the government would likely direct or heavily incentivize lower-skilled jobs. However, worldwide in response to the emergency several facets of international cooperation such as patent law would likely break down, with countries and potentially companies producing drugs and private technology without authorization, which in some ways could help make up for in the medium term a decline in overall manufacturing capability.

While I don't see a way with those percentages modern nations could survive in the state they are in, with around 70 percent adult survival rate in the US I think if the government took effective, decisive, military and command control they could probably preserve and rebuild a comparable standard of living and prevent total industrial collapse, or if the current system tried to maintain itself it would likely collapse. But claims of "extinction" are in my opinion pretty unsupported. Thoughts?