Alien deniers: the debate that shouldn't exist

Alien deniers: the cost of distraction

Why would anyone on an economics forum get into an argument about whether extraterrestrials exist or are a smokescreen? The answer has little to do with outer space and a lot to do with social psychology and the attention economy.

Conspiracy theory as unproductive spending

When a country devotes resources to debating whether UFOs are interstellar ships or humans from the future, what it is really doing is losing human capital. Hours of work that could be spent analyzing inflation, interest rates or productivity are dissipated in a duel of slogans. The argument that it is all a "saiop" (a setup) to hide government corruption, linked to the elbichito narrative, reveals a pattern: denialism has become a product that is consumed and generates income for its content creators, while it costs the citizen dearly in misinformation.

The paradox of the skeptical believer

Curiously, among those who deny the extraterrestrial visit there are those who claim the "greys" are humans from the year 50,000. A contradiction that illustrates how one can be skeptical of one story and gullible about another. From an economic point of view, this cognitive inconsistency has costs: the misallocation of trust makes it harder to invest in real science and technology, which are what actually generate value.

The abduction business

The ufology market moves millions across conferences, documentaries and merchandising. The fact that part of the population considers it a fraud does not slow the business down. Quite the opposite: polarization fuels engagement. The next time you see a headline about a sighting, ask yourself whether the debate isn't designed to make you look at the sky while someone empties your pockets.