Who sets the Doomsday Clock?(popularmechanics.com)
popularmechanics.com
Who sets the Doomsday Clock?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a70162364/setting-the-doomsday-clock/
23 comments
We’re closer to “doom” than in 1962 because Kennedy wasn’t a narcissist with Alzheimer and Khrushchev wasn’t an old KGB agent on a vengeance.
The leaders around the world now are the worst we’ve had since the 1930s. And now they have a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world at their whim.
The leaders around the world now are the worst we’ve had since the 1930s. And now they have a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world at their whim.
I enjoyed this comment on many levels.
The Doomsday Clock has been set so consistently high as to be completely meaningless as a benchmark.
According to Iron Maiden, it used to be at two minutes, now it's at 85 seconds.
I've always felt the idea was interesting, but the execution was silly. There are real, systematic problems - both specific to major countries and those that are common to nearly all.
But while they are very concerning, none of them I would say are an immediate, existential threat. Nuclear threat during the cold war was very real. International tensions were high and one mistake could have meant the death of countless millions.
What we see today is nothing like that. Is there vast inequality? Yes. Are there systems with terrible rewards? Corruption? Environmental concerns? Yes, yes, yes.
But none of those are apocalyptic in the way that I feel the Doomsday clock is meant to represent.
IMO they've used it so often for the wrong thing, that now it's watered down to the point of being meaningless.
But while they are very concerning, none of them I would say are an immediate, existential threat. Nuclear threat during the cold war was very real. International tensions were high and one mistake could have meant the death of countless millions.
What we see today is nothing like that. Is there vast inequality? Yes. Are there systems with terrible rewards? Corruption? Environmental concerns? Yes, yes, yes.
But none of those are apocalyptic in the way that I feel the Doomsday clock is meant to represent.
IMO they've used it so often for the wrong thing, that now it's watered down to the point of being meaningless.
I agree the whole thing is kind of silly, but "immediate" is relative - if viewing all of human history, environmental destruction in this century (say next 80 years), that would probably be the last few seconds of human life.
Also, as long as the world has 10k+ nuclear warheads are ready to be launched at the push of a few buttons, it wouldn't take much (accidents or quick escalations) to get to destruction.
Also, as long as the world has 10k+ nuclear warheads are ready to be launched at the push of a few buttons, it wouldn't take much (accidents or quick escalations) to get to destruction.
The number of such warheads has been gradually, steadily declining for a long time - if anything, that suggests the clock should be moving backwards.
Those conditions lead to conflict which lead to nuclear war.
I’m convinced it will happen in my lifetime and nothing in the last 5 years has made me feel like we’re moving in the direction of peace and international collaboration
I’m convinced it will happen in my lifetime and nothing in the last 5 years has made me feel like we’re moving in the direction of peace and international collaboration
People have been saying that longer than you have been alive.
hence why the clock’s stayed pretty close to midnight
The environmental concern might lead to massive migrations hinder and diseases.
[deleted]
> He believes that the erosion of shared reality is a greater danger than putting AI in control of nuclear weapons.
Likely the hype of the doomsday clock contributes to that erosion.
Likely the hype of the doomsday clock contributes to that erosion.
I have looked but I can't find out if it actually means something. Does 89 seconds before midnight mean we have a 50% chance to survive the next N years somehow?
So it's set by scientists. But the article fails to mention it's an art project. The clock itself being an art piece, and the setting of it a performance.
Personally, I felt more threatened when Israel/Hamas and Russia/Ukraine were both on the front burner at the same time.
But ok, it’s not my toy to set up.
But ok, it’s not my toy to set up.
So at a certain point this stopped being the “We are on the verge of nuclear war” sign and became the “How upset are people on the left” sign
The Doomsday Clock really strains credulity; I'd love to see a case for how we're closer to (as defined in this article) total nuclear annihilation or even a limited exchange than we were at any point in the cold war. The case is not convincingly made by any of the subjects in the article.
Nuclear proliferation is still something to be taken with deadly seriousness but the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences needs to cut the hyperbole and present their case more convincingly.
Nuclear proliferation is still something to be taken with deadly seriousness but the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences needs to cut the hyperbole and present their case more convincingly.
Absolutely true. I could certainly see an argument that we're closer now than 10 or 20 years ago. But closer than 1980? 1970? It's ludicrous to think so. It makes itself a measure that is obviously untrustworthy.
By what standard? You basically had side A and B. Now you have a dozen countries that can kick off a nuclear exchange.
There’s alot more factors now. The order we have today is really fragile. Especially as Ukraine has bared that the Russians are tiger with rotten teeth.
There’s alot more factors now. The order we have today is really fragile. Especially as Ukraine has bared that the Russians are tiger with rotten teeth.
At best, the clock is indeed a measuring device; one not of our peril, but of the anxieties of a group of otherwise non-notables. In that sense, it figures that it'd say we're closer to "doom" than during the Cuban missile crisis, because that's the intensity of current vibes, particularly if you're a modern activist plugged into the techno-socious of reactionary negativism.