
Doomsday Clock Moves Closer to Midnight - dnetesn
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/doomsday-clock-countdown-2017.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
======
GCA10
I've taken vague note of the Doomsday Clock for a long time -- and it's a
clever concept without a coherent calibration mechanism.

No quarrel with their directional moves ... now or at any other time. But
they've ended up in the incongruous situation of saying that 2017 at this very
moment is already more risky than the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, or Barry
Goldwater's mutterings about nuclear options in Vietnam in 1964, or the China-
Russia border war of 1969.

No. Simply no. They missed the chance in the early 1990s to move the clock
back to about 3 p.m., giving themselves much more room to create carefully
graduated increments of alarm as fresh stresses arose. The current state of
play in the USA deserves much more than a 30-second adjustment, and somewhat
less than a declaration that it's 2 1/2 minutes before midnight. I can think
of at least a dozen ways things could get worse before we're at imminent risk
of breathing radioactive isotopes for the (annoyingly short) rest of our
lives. Some of those perils already popped up in the 1950s/1960s, and we made
our way through them.

The current clock settings hardly do justice to the scientific method, or the
rightful role of subject experts in public debate.

~~~
strasser
moving some imaginary clock back and forth to give/relieve oneself anxiety
always struck me as kinda weird.

Don't people have anything else to do?

~~~
grzm
The concept of how close humanity is to global catastrophe is difficult to
convey directly, yet it's useful to be able to do so. The Doomsday Clock is
one easy way.

Large, complex systems are by there very nature difficult to understand. Being
able to summarize them easily — even if they don't completely capture the
nuance — allows people to get an idea of what's going on. It's not much
different from using KPIs and other metrics to understand a business.

You can argue that the metrics aren't useful, but providing reasons why you
think so, and possibly suggest better ways would help justify your claim.

~~~
gus_massa
The problem is that they don't have a clear method of calculation and a clear
meaning of what a minute means.

For example, let's made up some criteria:

1 minute = 99% probability of human extinction in 10 years

2 minutes = 98% probability of human extinction in 10 years

3 minutes = 97% probability of human extinction in 10 years

I'm not sure what 2 hours means. Probably the scale should not be more complex
than (100-p) * min/%

Or perhaps it's better to define 1 minute = 90% probability of human
extinction in 100 years

Or 1 minute = 50% probability of human extinction in 1 year

It's not clear what 1 minute before doomsday officially means.

Moreover, let's say that they define that 1 minute is x% chance of humanity
destruction in y years. How are they calculating it? Do they have any model?
How did they calibrate the model? How did they test the model? Is it reliable?

It's a made up number, without any scientific base. It's only an opinion of a
bunch of people that happened to work as scientific, not a scientific
measurement.

~~~
grzm
I think you've made a lot of valid points. It's a pretty complex system
they're trying to quantify.

You have to start somewhere, and having a group of people who specifically
decide to take into account what they consider useful criteria and deliberate
about it is a step forward. I think it's clear it could be better if it were
more rigorous. It wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there working
to do just that. It's not useless just because it's attempting to quantify a
complex system in a more subjective manner when it's not clear better
alternatives are available. You're right that it's an opinion of scientists,
and not a scientific measurement. They're experts in their fields and their
opinion does mean something. You're free to weight that how you want, of
course.

~~~
gus_massa
It blurs the line between science and bullshit. For example in

    
    
      Scientifics say the Doomsday clock is 2:30 minutes before Midnight
    
      Scientifics say this wall painting is 40.000 years old
    

Which one is reliable? Which one should a young Earth creationist believe? Are
40.000 years real years or some kind of metaphor? Is that number reliable?

~~~
grzm
They should each be interpreted in the context they're intended. What does it
mean to describe a particular pain to be a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10? Or the
numerical values on the Likert scale to measure opinion? Do these similarly
blur the line between science and bullshit? The question "are we closer or
further from global catastrophe?" is one worth trying to answer. The Doomsday
Clock is one way to make this comparison. Indeed, the Doomsday Clock value is
much more like pain or Likert scales in that it's used for comparison, as
opposed to an absolute value.

I'm not sure what you're arguing so strongly against. I'm not saying the
Doomsday Clock is perfect. I think it's useful. It can likely be improved.
When/if we can find better quantitative representation for this, I agree we
should use it.

------
sixhobbits
Advancing it by 30 seconds seems very similar to a parent who has made some
threat that they never intended to carry through, counting 1, 2, 2-and-a-half,
2-and-three-quarters...

If you have such a long established tradition of using "minutes" as some kind
of metaphor for upcoming doom, it doesn't feel meaningful to suddenly start
talking about half-minutes.

~~~
mschaef
> a parent who has made some threat that they never intended to carry through,
> counting 1, 2, 2-and-a-half, 2-and-three-quarters...

As a parent, I've taken this through as far as 2 and 255/256\. (Although by
that point it had changed from a threat to a math lesson.)

~~~
rconti
Is that what finally got them to behave? "Noooooooo!!!! Anything but math!!!"

------
johansch
I feel like we've all witnessed so much madness the past few years that we've
become desensitized. Nothing shocks us any longer. This is worrying because it
allows for gradual escalation until the inevitable.

(I think this is true regardless of political orientation.)

------
handedness
This strikes me as more of a statement than an assessment.

------
efoto
The clock is now closer to apocalyptic midnight, than at any time during the
lifetime of vast majority of readers here, myself included. It is worse than
during both the Caribbean crisis and early 80th.

~~~
MrZongle2
Which, given some of the close calls in the early 80s and the Cuban Missile
Crisis, illustrates how absurd this whole thing has become.

~~~
grzm
The clock isn't updated instantly.

 _The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached
crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that
possible doomsday._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Symbolic_timepi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#Symbolic_timepiece_changes)

------
run4yourlives2
Latest, completely relevant Hardcore History just released yesterday.

[http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-
destroyer-o...](http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-
worlds/)

Certainly worth a listen.

------
foxhop
"On Thursday, the group of scientists who orchestrate the Doomsday Clock, a
symbolic instrument informing the public when the earth is facing imminent
disaster, moved its minute hand to two and a half minutes before the final
hour."

1984's Iron Maiden - 2 minutes to midnight:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbRHY1l0vc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbRHY1l0vc)

I never really understood the meaning behind the lyrics until now.

------
grenoire
It's less than the expected change of 1 minute. That's... better, right?

~~~
nathancahill
When you're at 3 minutes, you can only subtract a full minute so many times
without the clock becoming irrelevant.

------
ourmandave
Oh great, now they'll do a leap second calibration and end the world.

------
SixSigma
propaganda

------
dfar1
This clock seems rather opinionated. What happens at midnight? Or better...
what if nothing happens? And how would this work anyway... some country
launches the first nuke, and someone goes running to update the clock to
midnight?

------
kordless
It's disingenuous to call this a "clock", given clocks keep their own time
through a rigorous standard of counting the passage of precisely measured
causality. While we may be "closer" to doom by some arbitrary consensus
mechanism, only humans can choose the causality of enabling that final "doom"
event, or putting it off for another day. Or, put another way, it ain't over
till it's over.

~~~
grzm
_The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clock face that represents a countdown to
possible global catastrophe. It has been maintained since 1947 by the members
of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ' Science and Security Board, who are
in turn advised by the Governing Board and the Board of Sponsors, including 18
Nobel Laureates. The closer they set the Clock to midnight, the more
vulnerable the scientists believe the world is to global disaster._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock)

These are sharp people. They're fully aware it's not a clock in the strict
sense you're pedantically ascribing. It's a useful analogy.

~~~
sodafountan
There's nothing "sharp" about these people. If they were sharp they'd be
spending their free time solving hard problems (which include cancer, aids,
Alzheimer's) rather than maintaining an imaginary clock. Absolute nonsense,
these "scientist" should be ashamed of themselves and in my mind they've
already lost all credibility.

~~~
edgarvaldes
>they'd be spending their free time solving hard problems.

Well, this update in the clock can't take a significant amount of time.

~~~
throwanem
With a board empaneled to decide? Are you sure about that?

