Pinned Tweet
It took me 10 years of philosophy, politics, work, and study to decide; Good Farming is the only thing that will save us.
English
Good Farming with Adam Durey
4.6K posts
Good Farming with Adam Durey
@GoodFarmingAdam
Regenerative, Organic, Bio-Dynamic, Syntropic - Its all Good Farming.
Australia Joined Ekim 2021
249 Following333 Followers
@HeritageUSA69 @NCyotee Funny way to admit you're a coward
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @NCyotee We’ve run this scenario precisely zero times. You’re talking about people VOTING blue where there is a 0% chance of actually dying
English
Yes, not committing suicide means you can't cooperate.
MFer, this isn't he prisoner's dilemma.
There's no reason for anyone to vote blue. So there's no reason to vote blue to try to "save" anyone. There's nothing to "save" them from because they can just not take the risk.
CuteAndFunny💢ᵃˡᵗ@CuteAndFunnyAlt
Groups where RED wins, most probably aren't able to cooperate to do anything productive They probably can't return the shopping cart to it's place either
English
The rational choice is blue
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
The rational choice is red, as it wins in both scenarios.
The reason blue even exists and currently leads is the social signaling value of empathy (and the recursion, signaling an assumption of empathy).
A subjective vs intersubjective choice. Tells you a lot about a person.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
Blue is objectively the right decision, Red voters try to kill people and still lose every time.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
"Those selfish red button pressers wanna murder all of us blue button pressers!!! >:c"
You're literally free to not press the "russian roulette for me pls" button; no benefit whatsoever to partaking in this pointless gamble
Red: 42.1%
Blue: 57.9%
You can't make this shit up
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@TheAhmadOsman 5.5 chews usage man, its a hungry hippo
English
To celebrate GPT-5.5, OpenAI should reset the limits
If you agree with this message, mention your favorite OpenAI person to let them know
Ahmad@TheAhmadOsman
GPT-5.5 just dropped TL;DR: This is another o1 / o3 moment - Shorter, more human, actual personality - Clearly pushing into personal agents (OpenClaw) - Higher info / Token density → Cheaper to reach GPT-5.4-level intelligence It codes different: - Less bloat - Cleaner, readable output Codex: - Frontier agentic coding - Backend > Claude Opus 4.6 - Give it specs and it will build it - Handles large codebases, long runs, visual iteration loops GPT-5.5 Pro: - Does 30-90 min runs cohesively like it’s nothing - Writes full docs, uses tools well - Can solve basically anything Tradeoffs: - Slower than Opus - More expensive per token - (but more efficient overall) GPT-5.5 is the new bar
English
Its both morally and objectively wrong.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
It's reaaaaally hard to switch to blue button, because most blue arguments boil down to stupid moral grandstanding like this.
Dr Kareem Carr@kareem_carr
If you press blue, the worst case is you die. If you press red, the worst case is you took part in an action that killed just under half of humanity. Clicking blue minimizes the worst-case moral injury. It says you’d rather die than risk contributing to the death of another.
English
@RealDianeYap This is the thing about Sin, that you dont get, sin is objectively wrong, on a significant timeline sin always leads to worse outcomes.
English
Its both more moral and objectively has greater life-value.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
Blue is not “more moral”
It is not moral to deliberately put yourself in harm’s way and count on others to come save you.
Joe Reeve - 🇬🇧/acc@isnit0
Guys blue is obviously more moral. Sure, red is logical. But blue is more moral. Anyone who thinks in 2nd order effects should advocate for blue. Just like the people who created our high trust societies would. Red voters destroy our society.
English
You were wrong on the maths.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @shlevy Yup. I'm not going to run into a burning building to see if anyone might be there, either--especially if my chance of surviving is less than 1 in 100,000.
English
You can’t equate pressing the red button with a prediction about the outcome of the poll. Red button pressers don’t “lose” if they aren’t the majority. They aren’t “proven wrong” if there are a lot of blues.
And yeah in the real world no way blue reaches 50%
Peter Hague@peterrhague
Typical red button argument is: “I have a higher IQ than people who correctly anticipated the outcome of the poll and therefore maximised utility in that context, because I assert in a real test that can never be done the poll would go the other way!” Behavioural string theory.
English
Because you objectively voted for thousands of people to die.
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
Why do people treat this as some kind of a dunk?
If I vote red, and then blue wins, why should I be coping about anything? I don't give a shit. Buttons are pressed, everyone lives, cool. I'm not making a prescription of "everyone should press red", I'm just choosing for myself.
Danielle Fong 🔆@DanielleFong
get game theory mogged once again, game theory advocates. everybody lives, and now you're in copeaganda about how you're not mean and wrong
English
1 blue vote is worth about 33'000 lives saved, blue is objectively the correct answer.
Assume 7 billion people are voting.
If you vote Red, you definitely live. So Red has a personal survival value of 1 life.
If you vote Blue, you might die if Red wins. But your Blue vote also helps create the only outcome where everyone lives.
The key point is this:
Most individual votes do nothing. But if the world is close to 50/50, one Blue vote can be worth billions of lives.
For 7 billion people, a “near-threshold” vote is rare — roughly:
1 chance in 105,000
But when that rare threshold happens, the difference is enormous.
If Red barely wins:
50.01% Red live
49.99% Blue die
At global scale, that means roughly:
3.5 billion people die
But if one more Blue vote pushes Blue into the majority:
0 people die
So the rough expected value is:
3.5 billion lives saved × 1/105,000 chance
That gives:
3,500,000,000 ÷ 105,000 ≈ 33,333 lives
Then you subtract the individual risk of voting Blue — about half a life on average — but that barely changes the result:
33,333 − 0.5 ≈ 33,332.5
So the simple statement is:
A Red vote gives you 1 guaranteed life. But compared with voting Blue, a Red vote costs the group about 33,000 expected lives at a 7-billion-person scale, assuming the world is roughly split 50/50.
English
I’d go further and say that everyone who says they would pick blue in an online survey would absolutely pick red if they actually found themselves in the situation and 100% believed they had a chance of dying if they picked blue.
Ari Paul ⛓️@AriDavidPaul
As a game theory question, it’s boring and easy. As a political question, it’s fascinating and reveals a great deal about why democracies struggle. Superficially, blue looks like the collectivist, selfless, moral answer. And as you’d expect, plenty of people not only assumed that to be true, but moralized aggressively at those who understand that’s not factually true. Anyone who picks red is guaranteed to live, including if everyone does it. It’s objectively the better and more moral choice for most and to recommend to others. Blue is a kind of stochastic suicide button.
English
@WootReturns @OctoAbbi Under a random 50/50 distribution of possible votes, one Blue vote has an expected collective survival advantage of roughly 33,000 lives over one Red vote, even though Red guarantees the individual voter survives.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @OctoAbbi Yes. Your stats are correct!
Red is still not a kill button.
And id still vote red.
You want to play Russian Roulette? Go right ahead.
English
It wins because there's no risk to picking it on a Twitter poll smartypants
Peter Hague@peterrhague
Amazing how lots of self appointed game theory experts confidently asserting that blue is the stupid choice. But every time this poll is run blue wins. Not only is the “game theory” answer predicting the wrong outcome, its explanatory power is based on it being able to predict the right answer. So it’s doubly wrong.
English
Yeah that was a joke.
Hey I did the math on the red/blue thing.
Under a random 50/50 distribution of possible votes, one Blue vote has an expected collective survival advantage of roughly 33,000 lives over one Red vote, even though Red guarantees the individual voter survives.
So if voting is effectively random, the equivalent risk of you selecting red is 33'000 lives globally.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam I don’t think collectivism means what you think it means
English
‘Press blue, and you gamble your life for nothing but a momentary feeling of moral superiority’…feels like the societal traps we have found ourselves in, humans being humans
Gurwinder@G_S_Bhogal
@waitbutwhy Press red, and you guarantee your survival while not affecting the survival of anyone else (since 1 button press won’t meaningfully impact the outcome of 8 billion button presses). Press blue, and you gamble your life for nothing but a momentary feeling of moral superiority.
English
@0xfdf Under a random 50/50 distribution of possible votes, one Blue vote has an expected collective survival advantage of roughly 33,000 lives over one Red vote, even though Red guarantees the individual voter survives.
English
@0xfdf 100% Red = 0% Die
100% Blue = 0% Die
50.01% Blue = 0% Die
50.01% Red = 49.99% Die
A blue vote is more likely to save more people more of the time.
English
Game theory is fun, but there is actually a neat deontological basis for both choices, ethically. The "everyone survives" cases are 1) everyone presses red, 2) a majority press blue. Since "everyone presses blue" contains 2, both choices survive Kant's categorical imperative.
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
Hey i did the maths on the life preserving value of each button and your so deeply wrong its disturbing, the only ball you have in your court is pure self-preservation.
Under a random 50/50 distribution of possible votes, one Blue vote has an expected collective survival advantage of roughly 33,000 lives over one Red vote, even though Red guarantees the individual voter survives.
English
Every single one of these people would press red. The only thing viral about this question is that every 6 months the same people reup their attempt to convince you into the gas chamber theyre not gonna go in.
Slazac 🇪🇺🇺🇦🇹🇼🌐@TrueSlazac
Every time this poll goes viral, “blue” starts winning and it angers a lot of people who desperately want to see half of the human population dead to be correct in an argument
English
@Hollyjeeny Im not collecting anything.
Yeah I have faith in christ, while you have faith in some generally net positive outcome for you personally?
English
@GoodFarmingAdam You are conflating what I mean as faith to what you mean as faith, it’s because you are a collectivist…I’m not
English
@HistoryBoomer Nah nah nah you already pressed red and put the orphanage in the blender man, its over
GIF
English
Fine, people have made some good cases for why you should press the blue button (what about children pressing blue by mistake, they deserve to live, etc), and so now I'm leaning blue, but more importantly, I think we should ban everyone who makes buttons.
Carl@HistoryBoomer
I think people are choosing "blue" because then they can feel noble, but in the real world, with their life on the line, they'd press red. I'd certainly press red! Just have the whole world press red, and nobody dies!
English
@Hollyjeeny Then why did you need the self-preserving kill blues button if you are guided by faith?
English
@GoodFarmingAdam I have faith, I’m not a Christian…those are not mutually exclusive
English
@breakingbaht @ArchGotta Can you be sure? Lucky the blues won man because you hit the kill people button.
THANKFULLY faith always wins, even with self-perserving, greedy, proud, and cowardice people like Eric; the faithful always bring the greater balance.
Don't be like Eric, vote to save humanity.
English
@GoodFarmingAdam @ArchGotta You didnt vote for anything. You press buttons on a keyboard and got mad online.
Youll be fine.
English