Discussions from previous years 2021 2020 (I borrowed the tags from these; <3 y'all) Context Wikipedia Personal take A few recent articles have (seemingly) tried to shrug off gloomy topics by...
The Doomsday Clock is a symbol that represents the likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe, in the opinion of the members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Maintained since 1947, the clock is a metaphor, not a prediction, for threats to humanity from unchecked scientific and technological advances. [...] A hypothetical global catastrophe is represented by midnight on the clock, with the Bulletin's opinion on how close the world is to one represented by a certain number of minutes or seconds to midnight, which is then assessed in January of each year.
[...]
The clock's original setting in 1947 was 7 minutes to midnight. It has since been set backward 8 times and forward 17 times. The farthest time from midnight was 17 minutes in 1991, and the nearest is 90 seconds, set on January 2023.
Personal take
A few recent articles have (seemingly) tried to shrug off gloomy topics by minimizing them: "we made it through the cold war/ozone layer depletion/dot com bust, so you'll be fine, kid". The atomic scientists and I agree that we, in fact, are not fine. We're all facing down several human civilization-ending threats at once.
IMO: Neither despair nor complacency are the answer, though, and it's critical to acknowledge a problem before deciding on how best to contribute to solving it.
I agree with you. In fact, I'd argue that it's a totally non-informative statement. Obviously we survived near-doomsday scenarios -- how would we be having this conversation otherwise?
A few recent articles have (seemingly) tried to shrug off gloomy topics by minimizing them: "we made it through the cold war/ozone layer depletion/dot com bust, so you'll be fine, kid". The atomic scientists and I agree that we, in fact, are not fine.
I agree with you. In fact, I'd argue that it's a totally non-informative statement. Obviously we survived near-doomsday scenarios -- how would we be having this conversation otherwise?
I think we have to be careful with viewing a clearly subjective measure as in any way objective, just because they are putting a number down. IMO, it is obvious that the threat from nuclear...
I think we have to be careful with viewing a clearly subjective measure as in any way objective, just because they are putting a number down. IMO, it is obvious that the threat from nuclear weapons to completely destroy humanity is relatively low now, and climate change, while having the possibility of displacing hundreds of millions and contributing to the deaths of millions, will not erase humanity. Remember, smart scientists are just as susceptible to pessimism as any of us, and just because they are experts in their field does not mean that they are experts in geopolitics or even particularly good at predicting the future (see nobel disease as well for examples of hubris)
On the other hand just because everything’s good on whatever media and content you’re taking in doesn’t mean that it is. 2 of 9 countries holding nukes are currently at war, both of which are...
IMO, it is obvious that the threat from nuclear weapons to completely destroy humanity is relatively low now
On the other hand just because everything’s good on whatever media and content you’re taking in doesn’t mean that it is. 2 of 9 countries holding nukes are currently at war, both of which are losing global support. It’s not entirely unthinkable that they’d do something drastic.
Especially when you consider Israel has very explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons in the past by opening the Jericho hatches. I can't really agree more that things can go wrong at any...
Especially when you consider Israel has very explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons in the past by opening the Jericho hatches.
I can't really agree more that things can go wrong at any moment and no-one will know much better. It'll be a whole lot of "I told you so's", but at that point it doesn't even matter. We are regretfully at the mercy of a select few people who have the authority to use their nuclear arsenals. At this point I try not to think about it.
Pretty much, but I wouldn't be evoking it if not for the fact that Israel has, during Yom Kippur, pretty much told the Americans that they will use nuclear weapons if they can't hold the Arab...
Pretty much, but I wouldn't be evoking it if not for the fact that Israel has, during Yom Kippur, pretty much told the Americans that they will use nuclear weapons if they can't hold the Arab powers off conventionally. The story is a bit fragmented into all kinds of versions, but the gist is that Israel has threatened to use nuclear strikes in the past and I see no reason to believe now it will be different, assuming that a larger war descends (which seems all too imminent) and Israel cannot hold its own.
Yes, but they are not at war with nuclear powers. While there is a small possibility they could detonate a nuke, and that would set a bad precedent (and be awful for the victims), I don't see it...
Yes, but they are not at war with nuclear powers. While there is a small possibility they could detonate a nuke, and that would set a bad precedent (and be awful for the victims), I don't see it escalating past perhaps convential support being sent to the victim state
Discussions from previous years
(I borrowed the tags from these; <3 y'all)
Context
Wikipedia
Personal take
A few recent articles have (seemingly) tried to shrug off gloomy topics by minimizing them: "we made it through the cold war/ozone layer depletion/dot com bust, so you'll be fine, kid". The atomic scientists and I agree that we, in fact, are not fine. We're all facing down several human civilization-ending threats at once.
IMO: Neither despair nor complacency are the answer, though, and it's critical to acknowledge a problem before deciding on how best to contribute to solving it.
I agree with you. In fact, I'd argue that it's a totally non-informative statement. Obviously we survived near-doomsday scenarios -- how would we be having this conversation otherwise?
I think we have to be careful with viewing a clearly subjective measure as in any way objective, just because they are putting a number down. IMO, it is obvious that the threat from nuclear weapons to completely destroy humanity is relatively low now, and climate change, while having the possibility of displacing hundreds of millions and contributing to the deaths of millions, will not erase humanity. Remember, smart scientists are just as susceptible to pessimism as any of us, and just because they are experts in their field does not mean that they are experts in geopolitics or even particularly good at predicting the future (see nobel disease as well for examples of hubris)
On the other hand just because everything’s good on whatever media and content you’re taking in doesn’t mean that it is. 2 of 9 countries holding nukes are currently at war, both of which are losing global support. It’s not entirely unthinkable that they’d do something drastic.
Especially when you consider Israel has very explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons in the past by opening the Jericho hatches.
I can't really agree more that things can go wrong at any moment and no-one will know much better. It'll be a whole lot of "I told you so's", but at that point it doesn't even matter. We are regretfully at the mercy of a select few people who have the authority to use their nuclear arsenals. At this point I try not to think about it.
Is that a reference to the infamous Samson Option?
Pretty much, but I wouldn't be evoking it if not for the fact that Israel has, during Yom Kippur, pretty much told the Americans that they will use nuclear weapons if they can't hold the Arab powers off conventionally. The story is a bit fragmented into all kinds of versions, but the gist is that Israel has threatened to use nuclear strikes in the past and I see no reason to believe now it will be different, assuming that a larger war descends (which seems all too imminent) and Israel cannot hold its own.
Yes, but they are not at war with nuclear powers. While there is a small possibility they could detonate a nuke, and that would set a bad precedent (and be awful for the victims), I don't see it escalating past perhaps convential support being sent to the victim state
Your link is malformed.
Zeno's doomsday clock. A picosecond to midnight. A prophecy that we are eternally approaching Armageddon, yet we never truly reach it.
That has some complicated emotions when you just want to be done with it already, but then you realize, "No, wait. That would be bad."