Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#21

Post by geofft »

oh_sigh wrote: post #5

The Doomsday Clock is a PR piece for a group of politicized scientists. The threat of a nuclear catastrophe is higher now than it was during the Cuban missile crisis? That doesn't ring true.

Wikipedia says that the group setting the clock didn't meet during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It seems they publish the clock annually.

It seems entirely reasonable that we're in more danger now than at sampled points before/after the Crisis - after all, it proved that the US and the USSR could manage to not blow each other up. There are more nuclear-capable powers today headed by less sensible men.

Also: "Because, you see, the clock is not a gauge to register the ups and downs of the international power struggle; it is intended to reflect basic changes in the level of continuous danger in which mankind lives in the nuclear age, and will continue living, until society adjusts its basic attitudes and institutions to the challenges of science."

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#22

Post by allovernow »

dhosek wrote: post #10
anakaine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the clock is almost always midnight, surely we are either on the cusp, or the time is set incorrectly. Although there are many things wrong I'd argue that we are nowhere near as bad off as during the peak of the cold war, for example.

I'd argue that with climate change, we're worse off than during the cold war. At least during the cold war, no one was arguing that nuclear annihilation wasn't a problem.

Even the worst predictions of runaway warming are going to take decades, if not centuries, to manifest, and at worst we're probably talking about mass migrations as arable regions shift. Earth turning into Venus or Mars is unlikely and even if that is the case such a transformation would realistically take so long that it's frankly hysteria to call it doomsday.

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#23

Post by pupppet »

oh_sigh wrote: post #5

The Doomsday Clock is a PR piece for a group of politicized scientists. The threat of a nuclear catastrophe is higher now than it was during the Cuban missile crisis? That doesn't ring true.

This shouldn't be downvoted. There is absolutely no way we're in greater danger at this very moment then we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#24

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

kaonashi wrote: post #7
bArray wrote: post #2

How seriously should this be taken? It doesn't feel as if we're much closer than we have been?

Virus pandemics affecting global trade, climate change is starting to build steam and become irreversible, right-wing ethnocentric parties are taking over in much of the developed world. How can you not take it seriously?

I think you can take serious problems seriously without “Ok Doomer”.

If you are told you are seconds from annihilation all the time, someone is playing with your emotions.

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#25

Post by _y5hn »

frozenport wrote: post #14
dhosek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that with climate change, we're worse off than during the cold war. At least during the cold war, no one was arguing that nuclear annihilation wasn't a problem.

There were hawks arguing you could go a lot farther without triggering nuclear war. Early in the war there was a belief that soviet bombers could be shot down before hitting mainland US targets.

There were actual plans for people surviving in bunkers after atomic bombing. With the hydrogen bomb, the calculations changed from survivability for a few, to no meaningful survivability.

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#26

Post by Sevrene »

allovernow wrote: post #22
dhosek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that with climate change, we're worse off than during the cold war. At least during the cold war, no one was arguing that nuclear annihilation wasn't a problem.

Even the worst predictions of runaway warming are going to take decades, if not centuries, to manifest, and at worst we're probably talking about mass migrations as arable regions shift. Earth turning into Venus or Mars is unlikely and even if that is the case such a transformation would realistically take so long that it's frankly hysteria to call it doomsday.

The worst possible outcome as far as humans are concerned is an economical disaster which would lead to people with out money, food, or water. People die with out those, so it's likely they would be willing to fight to death for them. So the worst outcome in the distant future is probably a collapse of society as we know it. Migrants already cause a lot of political instability. Lack of resources already cause wars and deaths. This will be exacerbated by climate change, and to some degree already is now. For example, a shortage of food causes unrest and that unrest grows to the point it can be used to justify a conflict.

We have to have a lot of inaction to get to that point from here, but it's possible.

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#27

Post by allovernow »

Sevrene wrote: post #26
allovernow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the worst predictions of runaway warming are going to take decades, if not centuries, to manifest, and at worst we're probably talking about mass migrations as arable regions shift. Earth turning into Venus or Mars is unlikely and even if that is the case such a transformation would realistically take so long that it's frankly hysteria to call it doomsday.

The worst possible outcome as far as humans are concerned is an economical disaster which would lead to people with out money, food, or water. People die with out those, so it's likely they would be willing to fight to death for them. So the worst outcome in the distant future is probably a collapse of society as we know it. Migrants already cause a lot of political instability. Lack of resources already cause wars a…

The point is that none of this is going to happen overnight and though millions may suffer or die, there will be time for mitigation. Civilization won't end - which is the criteria for the doomsday clock. The inclusion of climate change may be well intentioned but it is inappropriate.

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#28

Post by oh_sigh »

dhosek wrote: post #11
oh_sigh wrote: post #5

The Doomsday Clock is a PR piece for a group of politicized scientists. The threat of a nuclear catastrophe is higher now than it was during the Cuban missile crisis? That doesn't ring true.

It's not just nuclear catastrophe that's being measured. >"Midnight" has a deeper meaning to it besides the constant threat of war. There are various things taken into consideration when the scientists from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists decide what Midnight and "global catastrophe" really mean in a particular year. They might include "politics, energy, weapons, diplomacy, and climate science"

Even the worst projections of climate change are not "doomsday" events. Global nuclear Holocaust is doomsday. Extreme weather and displaced people is not doomsday. Which goes to exactly my point about the clock being used by politicized scientists.

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#29

Post by oh_sigh »

geofft wrote: post #21
oh_sigh wrote: post #5

The Doomsday Clock is a PR piece for a group of politicized scientists. The threat of a nuclear catastrophe is higher now than it was during the Cuban missile crisis? That doesn't ring true.

Wikipedia says that the group setting the clock didn't meet during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It seems they publish the clock annually. It seems entirely reasonable that we're in more danger now than at sampled points before/after the Crisis - after all, it proved that the US and the USSR could manage to not blow each other up. There are more nuclear-capable powers today headed by less sensible men. Also: " Because, y…

The clock was at 7 minutes during the crisis, and they didn't feel it necessary to move it. Yet now it is at 1 minute 40 seconds?

Re: Doomsday Clock at the shortest distance to midnight ever

#30

Post by geofft »

oh_sigh wrote: post #29
geofft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia says that the group setting the clock didn't meet during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It seems they publish the clock annually. It seems entirely reasonable that we're in more danger now than at sampled points before/after the Crisis - after all, it proved that the US and the USSR could manage to not blow each other up. There are more nuclear-capable powers today headed by less sensible men. Also: " Because, y…

The clock was at 7 minutes during the crisis, and they didn't feel it necessary to move it. Yet now it is at 1 minute 40 seconds?

Yes.
Post reply on HN