On this tranquil Sunday nearing the year’s end, I immersed myself in some series and films. With the release of the second season of the South Korean series "Squid Game" and my initial enjoyment of the first season, I watched its first three episodes this morning.

The premise of the series is, that a large group of “sinful” individuals with problematic pasts (debts, fraud, theft, etc.) and acute financial distress (mostly indebtedness) are drawn into a game by the allure of an enormous prize of 45.6 billion Korean Won, which equals roundabout 31 million U.S. dollars. These individuals are transported unconsciously to an anonymous island where they are were thrown into an artificially created, deceptively harmless-looking game world with pink walls where they are forced to play for their lives. There are 456 participants, and for each participant who is "disqualified," 100 million Korean Won are added to the prize pool.

Before the first game begins, the participants have a onetime option to leave the game. To join, they must sign the rules and declare themselves content with it. Unbeknownst to the participants, aside from numbers 456 and 1, "disqualification" actually means liquidation. In contrast to the first season, the new series introduces a democratic element: after each round, participants can hold a majority vote to decide whether to proceed to the next round or to divide the thus far accumulated prize money among themselves and permanently end the game.

The first game, "Red Light, Green Light" features a giant doll equipped with camera eyes and artificial intelligence capable of detecting any movement, granting snipers permission to fire upon breach of the rules.

91 participants were disqualified during this game (nearly one in five). Shaken, the survivors returned to their large dormitory, expressing outrage over the massacre. Before advancing to the second game, the protagonist, Gi-Hun Seong, initiates a plebiscite invoking the third clause of the game’s rules to end the game by majority vote. He informs the remaining 365 participants that he had played the game three years earlier and knew that all but one of them would likely not survive. His credibility is bolstered by his warnings during the first game about the rules and their consequences, demonstrating his insider knowledge based on his previous experiences. The vote commences, but as the pro-continuation faction gains a lead, Gi-Hun Seong desperately attempts to persuade those still in line to vote against proceeding.

Gi-Hun Seong tries to convince the ones who haven’t voted so far.

It becomes evident that half of the participants, driven by lower, primitive motifs, are willing to continue the life-endangering game despite its risks. Their reasons vary: some are greedy for the prize money, others too naive to assess the survival risks rationally. Some are overly proud or arrogant, overestimating their abilities. Others, having given up on life, feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Still, others derive false security from the group dynamic, assuming the majority cannot be wrong. Some view dissenters as cowards or losers in their arrogance, while others fear missing out (FOMO).

The pro-continuation part on the left wins the election.

These lower base motivations align with the seven deadly sins of Roman Catholic doctrine

Superbia (Pride, Vanity, Arrogance)
Avaritia (Greed, Avarice)
Luxuria (Lust, Excess, Desire, Indulgence)
Ira (Wrath, Anger, Vengeance)
Gula (Gluttony, Selfishness, Lack of Restraint)
Invidia (Envy, Jealousy)
Acedia (Sloth, Cowardice, Apathy, Indifference)

Yet none of those voting to continue considers for even a moment that their decision endangers the lives of others, especially of those who voted against it. Each acts out of pure self-interest. The result is a narrow victory for the pro-continuation camp, with just one vote tipping the scales.

The election result: 183 are for a continuation of the games.

But what does this say about democracy? At its core, democracy is nothing more than the rule of the many—the majority. In this instance, the majority, substantially guided by base motives and flawed character traits, not only condemned themselves but also jeopardized those who were wiser and more rational. While one might dismiss this as merely a fictional artistic narrative, similar dynamics have occurred. For instance, during the COVID-19 crisis, even in Switzerland—a nation renowned for its direct democracy and highly educated populace—two referenda were held concerning the termination of the political COVID regime. Over a two-year period, 30-40% of the population lost fundamental rights, were unjustly treated as second-class citizens, and subjected to active discrimination, exclusion, and harassment. This was only possible because the majority, driven by base instincts, permitted it. The overwhelming majority took part in an experiment without deeper reflection about possible consequences. In hindsight, many have gained wisdom, though some possessed it beforehand. However, significant societal harm was inflicted, with repercussions likely to persist for decades.

The covid certificate: The ticket to first-class citizenship

Ancient Greek philosophers, namely Platon, who were foundational to Western thought, recognized that democracy will devolve into tyranny. They argued that people lack the competence and maturity to select leaders who prioritize collective well-being over personal gain. This truth is evident in the series. Most individuals act selfishly, disregarding the fundamental interests of others. Moreover, their susceptibility to the seven deadly sins underscores their lack of civic maturity, as these vices manifest in democratic decision-making through greed-driven policies, prideful overconfidence in uninformed opinions, and envy-fueled polarization that hinders collective progress. The masses resemble a flock of sheep that require a wise shepherd and disciplined sheepdogs. A negligent shepherd—whether through indifference, cynicism, incompetence, or serving other interests—could lead the flock down a cliff, whereas a good shepherd will lead the herd to the greenest, most fertile, and safest pastures. Do you believe the masses are capable and mature enough to choose a good shepherd? Ultimately, your perception of the human nature determines the answer. However, the answer to this question has gone from heuristic to empirical based on numerous historical examples, leaving little room for subjective interpretation.

Squid Game and the Dilemma of Democracy

Personality and Power: Builders and Destroyers of Modern Europe

Return on Energy