Paul Krugman Calls for Space Aliens to Attack Earth Requiring Massive Defense Buildup

[osoab]

video at link. Just snippets of the transcript.

Paul Krugman Calls for Space Aliens to Attack Earth Requiring Massive Defense Buildup to Stimulate Economy
(http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/14/paul-krugman-calls-space-aliens-attack-earth-requiring-massive-defens)

On Sunday's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," New York Times columnist - and, ahem, Nobel laureate - Paul Krugman actually advocated space aliens attack earth thereby requiring a massive defense buildup by the United States that would stimulate the economy (video follows with transcript and commentary):




PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.

I mean, probably because you want to put these things together, if we say, "Look, we could use some inflation." Ken and I are both saying that, which is, of course, anathema to a lot of people in Washington but is, in fact, what fhe basic logic says.

It's very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish, you know, a great deal.

If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –
ROGOFF: And we need Orson Welles, is what you're saying.

KRUGMAN: No, there was a "Twilight Zone" episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don't need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.

[Awoke]

The "economy" is all a big giant lie anyways. Digital debt. Digital ledger entries.

Digital bullshit.

[iOWNme]

So you mean when Government puts a stranglehold on the free market, growth stops?

And now when growth stops, we must use violence and War, to create the 'growth' that the natural free market would have created had it not been snuffed out?

WAR IS A RACKET


If the Government TRULY wanted growth, it would get the fuck out of the way of the independent free market business man. You know the one that built this country from the ground up.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Economic theory is the successor to theology. It is a way to make the slaves feel like they are free and that there is a noble purpose for their slavery. It is a harness for mind control. Krugman is a modern 'priest' in that he spouts the mumbo jumbo of economic theory. People who believe modern economic theory will find it not much of a jump to believe in alien invasions to stimulate the economy.

I am sure just as many people are likely to believe that aliens exist as those who believe that there are real terrorists who are not on some government's payroll. We don't need real enemies any more to engage in a war. It is just as easy to get people to hate imaginary enemies as real ones, and to go out and defend their country from those enemies by going out and killing them where they live. We don't need proof for anything any more--just the word of authority will do.

What we really need is to have a real war against insanity, against paranoia, against sociopaths who would have us act out their hate fantasies. I would be glad to pay for such a war if it lasts no more than a day or two, and frees the world from the grip of the sociopaths and authoritarians whose goal is to enslave everybody. We can only have hope of a better world if we destroy the people who deny it to us.

Everybody needs to watch Starship Troopers. It's an anti-war movie that was waaaaay ahead of its time,


Hatha

[Golden]

Does anyone else feel like they're at the psych ward? haha I don't know why I'm laughing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T5xg57C-BA&feature=channel_video_title

[osoab]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1Fzzs7oVaA&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1Fzzs7oVaA&feature=player_embedded

[Glass]

It's truly an Alice in Wonderland world isn't it.

[osoab]

To Save the Galaxy, Destroy Humanity (http://news.discovery.com/space/save-the-galaxy-destroy-humanity-110818.html)



There's no subject more fertile for debate (http://news.discovery.com/space/why-we-dont-need-to-worry-about-space-invaders.html) than hypothesizing about the nature of extraterrestrial beings.

So, in a study carried out by researchers affiliated with* NASA and Pennsylvania State University ("Would contact with extraterrestrials benefit or harm humanity?

A scenario analysis," arXiv:1104.4462v2 [physics.pop-ph] (http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462)), several intelligent extraterrestrial encounter scenarios are examined. One of the scenarios is a sci-fi favorite: what if we encounter an alien race hell bent on destroying us?

ANALYSIS: Why Would Aliens Invade? (http://news.discovery.com/space/why-would-aliens-invade-110310.html)

But this isn't mindless thuggery (http://news.discovery.com/space/do-aliens-exist-will-they-kill-us.html) on behalf of the aliens, and they're not killing us to get at our natural resources (http://news.discovery.com/space/in-praise-of-yes-you-heard-me-battle-los-angeles-110312.html), they have a cause. They want to exterminate us for the greater good of the Milky Way.

Yes, they consider us cockroaches. Cockroaches left in charge of increasingly advanced and destructive technology.

Let's face it, with ecosystem destruction (http://news.discovery.com/earth/amazon-deforestation-up-15-percent-110818.html) on a global scale and greenhouse gases being belched out (http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html) into the atmosphere at record rates, to a distant alien observer we may look like a destructive civilization spiraling out of control -- and they wouldn't be far wrong.

RELATED: The Search For Extraterrestrial Polluters (http://news.discovery.com/space/the-search-for-extraterrestrial-polluters.html)
Therefore, as the ET logic may go, if we're making such a mess of our own back yard, if we venture deeper into space and become a true interstellar civilization, what hope is there that we'll treat the rest of the galaxy (and the other beings in it) with any respect?


(http://news.discovery.com/videos/space-alien-speculation.html)
"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilization may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand," the study says. "Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions."

Of course, ETI might just be an aggressive race, so like Stephen Hawking's recent warning (http://news.discovery.com/space/do-aliens-exist-will-they-kill-us.html), the authors of the study suggest that perhaps we shouldn't transmit too much information into space.

The authors explore other scenarios as well, including other destructive outcomes of encountering an alien race. Positive and neutral outcomes are included.

One positive outcome that could arise from bumping into a friendly ETI is that it takes our fledgling race under its wing (tentacle) and helps us, technologically, to push deeper into space. Perhaps they'll even let us join their Interstellar Rotary Club! They might even join forces with us to repel another, less-friendly alien race -- something that would be advantageous if we find ourselves embedded in a galactic ecosystem.


ANALYSIS: Galactic Ecosystem Survival: Keep Your Head Down (http://news.discovery.com/space/survive-the-cosmic-ecosystem-keep-your-head-low-110409.html)

But what of the "neutral" outcomes? Well, say if the ETI is incomprehensible?

They may be too alien for us to communicate in any meaningful way.

As noted by the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu), their entry requirements into a hypothetical Interstellar Rotary Club may be wrapped in bureaucratic red tape, making the whole "alien encounter experience" a bore. Said aliens may even just turn up unannounced, "District 9"-style, and impose on our planet like a friend's sofa. They might be content just eating snacks and watching our TV.

Needless to say, all these scenarios are completely constructed from human experience -- any study into the hypothetical nature of ETI will have a heavy anthropocentric bias. What if we encounter an alien civilization whose intentions are completely baffling? What if we can't decide whether their intentions are positive, negative or neutral?

Well, I suppose that's why we need studies like this.

*As noted by a commenter below, this is not NASA research. As in, it wasn't funded by NASA. One of the author's "day jobs" is with NASA, but as noted by Shawn Domagal-Goldman on his blog "Pale Blue" (http://paleblueblog.org/post/9110304050/some-important-points-of-clarification): "It was just a fun paper written by a few friends, one of whom happens to have a NASA affiliation."

Obviously this is in response to the huge media interest this work has generated -- and possible negative connotations that NASA had directly funded a SETI-like hypothetical study. Still, it's a wonderfully written paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf) examining the potential "first contact" scenarios with an intelligent alien species. In my books, that's pure awesomejuice.
via The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations?CMP=twt_gu)