
A new abnormal: It is still 2 minutes to midnight - pseudolus
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
======
nabla9
Warren Buffet, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (big player in the insurance and
re-insurance business) discussed some of these scary tail risks in his letter
to shareholders in 2015

[http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2015ltr.pdf](http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2015ltr.pdf)

>There is, however, one clear, present and enduring danger to Berkshire
against which Charlie and I are powerless. That threat to Berkshire is also
the major threat our citizenry faces: a “successful” (as defined by the
aggressor) cyber, biological, nuclear or chemical attack on the United States.
That is a risk Berkshire shares with all of American business.

>The probability of such mass destruction in any given year is likely very
small. It’s been more than 70 years since I delivered a Washington Post
newspaper headlining the fact that the United States had dropped the first
atomic bomb. Subsequently, we’ve had a few close calls but avoided
catastrophic destruction. We can thank our government – and luck! – for this
result.

>Nevertheless, what’s a small probability in a short period approaches
certainty in the longer run. (If there is only one chance in thirty of an
event occurring in a given year, the likelihood of it occurring at least once
in a century is 96.6%.) The added bad news is that there will forever be
people and organizations and perhaps even nations that would like to inflict
maximum damage on our country. Their means of doing so have increased
exponentially during my lifetime. “Innovation” has its dark side.

>There is no way for American corporations or their investors to shed this
risk. If an event occurs in the U.S.that leads to mass devastation, the value
of all equity investments will almost certainly be decimated.

>No one knows what “the day after” will look like. I think, however, that
Einstein’s 1949 appraisal remain sapt: “I know not with what weapons World War
III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

~~~
Aperocky
It's funny how 'cyber' is listed up there with nuclear, biological and
chemical attacks, while I understand that Buffet might not be well versed in
technology, I think it's vital that the people running the government be
educated on the real cyber threat and what it entails.

~~~
felixarba
You don't have to be well versed in nuclear physics to understand the dangers
of nuclear weapons.

~~~
hanniabu
You need to be well versed in order to make regulation on it

------
praptak
2 minutes is the maximal value ever. While there are definitely more risks
than just after the end of the cold war, I don't believe it's worse than
during the cold war itself. Seems inflated, which is a shame.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Agreed. It's a useless metric. It's like the "terrorism threat" color code
crap. It'll never come down to a low setting because at the end of the day
it's a propaganda tool to make people think a certain way (feel scared, in
both cases). Setting it low is the same as turning it off and saying there's
nothing to worry about which is totally counter to the goals of the people
publishing these indicators.

I know I'm going to get down-voted because being scared of nuclear
annihilation is kind of a point of virtue around here but if you take the
emotion out of it it becomes pretty clear that the doomsday clock, or any
other indicator that acts in a similar manner is nothing more than a
propaganda tool. It may be propaganda for something you like but it's still
propaganda.

~~~
JoelTheSuperior
To be fair I don't think it's just a propaganda tool - I think in the case of
the terrorism threat levels at least they're ultimately used for justifying
higher levels of funding.

Compare it to working in an office - it's almost in your interests to convince
others that you're very busy to avoid having more workload.

------
dooglius
Previously:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16232528](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16232528)

I think the top comment still holds, this organization is just acting as a
hollow political mouthpiece at this point.

~~~
saalweachter
The Doomsday Clock has _always_ been political rhetoric.

Why is that a bad thing?

~~~
jjoonathan
Normally, one might make the charitable assumption that an organization with a
name like "Atomic Science and Security Board" does something other than spout
political messages. It seems plausible that they might be a body of experts
assessing the relationship between the world's nuclear powers and
communicating their analysis through an easy to understand metaphor.
Unfortunately, they chose a metaphor that holds them accountable, and now that
they're run out of metaphorical hours and minutes with which to communicate
deterioration in the situation, they make a mockery of themselves with every
press release.

The situation is grave, but the Doomsday Clock is a joke.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
How would you suggest they communicate their point?

~~~
dooglius
As an explicitly partisan organization

~~~
ben_w
How is “I don’t want civilization to end” partisan?

------
Synaesthesia
We’re living in a very dangerous time where the threat of nuclear war or a
horrific accident is very much still with us, but public awareness of this
issue is very low. The only sane solution is to move towards nuclear
disarmament. We are playing with fire.

~~~
jnwatson
Given that Ukraine, one of the small handful of nuclear states that
voluntarily gave up its weapons, likely rues its decision, disarmament is a
pipe dream.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Once people thought ending slavery or having democracy free of Kings was a
pipe dream.

------
nnx
Kurgezagt just posted a video “What if we nuked a city”
[https://youtu.be/5iPH-br_eJQ](https://youtu.be/5iPH-br_eJQ)

~~~
ThrowMeAwayOkay
I watched, and clearly explains the horrible facts and timeline of what
happens.

------
zaroth
Wikipedia says the recent bump to “2 minutes” was taken due to;

> _The most recent officially announced setting—2 minutes to midnight—was made
> in January 2018, which was left unchanged in 2019 due to the twin threats of
> nuclear weapons and climate change, and the problem of those threats being
> "exacerbated this past year by the increased use of information warfare to
> undermine democracy around the world, amplifying risk from these and other
> threats and putting the future of civilization in extraordinary danger.”_

Those same systems which enabled “increased use of information warfare” also
enabled the rise of Greta Thunberg from a kid skipping school to the face of a
movement speaking at the UN.

I’m pretty sure you can’t have systems which enable the later without enabling
the former.

And given the choice between having or not having those systems, I think we
are better off with them than without them.

Therefore is it reasonable to conclude that they moved the clock forward based
on technological advances which should have actually rolled the clock back?

------
psilocipher
I couldn't get past the horribly annoying two-column format of the document.
Opened the PDF hoping it would be different. Nope.

