Red sunset in the city. Photo by Steven Weeks on Unsplash
Hypothetically, if you had only one moment left to live, how would you spend it? Well scientists just moved the hands of the “Doomsday Clock” closer to midnight (aka the apocalypse) than ever before; with only 90 seconds left, should we be worried, or are they being overly catastrophic?
January 27, 2023
Popular culture regularly encourages us to “live in the moment,” but how long is a moment? Before the metric or imperial systems of measurement were developed, philosophers, historians and academics used more general units to quantify time, for example, one “moment” was widely used to represent a period of 90 seconds.
Within the 24 hours of every day, we each experience hundreds of these “moments” (960 to be exact); fleeting periods of time that, more often than not, go unnoticed.
But perhaps we should in fact be paying more attention to this hedonist mantra, because according to the scientists that just moved the hand of the “Doomsday Clock” closer to 00:00 than it has ever been before, we’re just over a mere minute away from the end of the world as we know it.
It’s now just 90 seconds to midnight.
With only one metaphorical moment left of existence for humanity, the saying ”every second counts” is given an entirely new meaning.
What is the “Doomsday Clock?”
The “Doomsday Clock,” created in 1947, is an “international symbol of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe” as well as a countdown to when the “man-made threats to human existence” like nuclear weapons, the fossil fuel industry and technology, are likely to tip us over the edge.
The time on this clock has fluctuated over the decades, however it has remained stable since 2020 when it was moved forward by 20 seconds (from 2 minutes to midnight, to just 100 seconds to midnight) due to the escalating threat posed by cyber-warfare.
This year’s new time of 90 seconds to midnight (a move forward of 10 seconds) was set by the scientists due to the rising global threat posed by Russia’s war in Ukraine, as well as the conflict’s exacerbation of nuclear threat and the ongoing escalation of the climate crisis.
Other factors such as biosecurity, rising disinformation, “disruptive technology,” and “the breakdown of global norms” were also denoted by the scientists as present-day threat multipliers that have forced the clock’s hands forward.
But what happens when the doomsday clock hits midnight? Hypothetically (or metaphorically) speaking, this is the “theoretical point of annihilation;” the apocalypse, or end of the world as we know it.
Should we be worried?
Generally speaking, in broad, existential terms, yes, we should take note of this warning. But in relation to the implied imminent threat of the apocalypse, no, not really.
Though the “Doomsday Clock” and its annual approach or backtrack from midnight somewhat serves as a reflection of the current condition of the world and its problems, rather than a literal ticking time-bomb, it’s more like a metaphor.
The clock’s time embodies the global events of the past year, and is used to open diaglogue, foster solidarity, raise awareness, and convey urgency to the masses who may not have time to read longform news or research articles that would otherwise provide an accurate and informed perspective on global issues.
It’s also a brand and logo for the media organisation that created it, the “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists;” a non-profit magazine and independent news outlet who designed the clock as a way to warn the public, policy makers and scientists just how close humanity is veering towards self-destruction.
Think of it as a dystopian but effective proxy for inspiring action in the masses, whose even minor mindset and lifestyle changes could not only reverse the metaphorical hands of time, but also the very real damage being done to the planet.
The threat implied by the “Doomsday Clock” is still however suitably serious, and its urgent message should certainly be heeded.
But given that the Bulletin also sell a 75th anniversary commemorative “Doomsday Clock” coffee table book, have compiled a related playlist, and also house an exhibition of the clock you can visit in Chicago if you’re feeling pessimistic, you don’t have to worry too much.
Hozier even wrote a song titled, “Wasteland, Baby!” inspired by the Doomsday Clock moving closer to midnight in 2018.
History of the clock
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by none other than Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, “the father of the atomic bomb,” and a group of other international researchers from the Los Alamos laboratory and the University of Chicago.
The group started publishing the magazine off the back of their work on the Manhattan Project; the nuclear research program that created the first atomic weapons during World War II.
After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, attacks which were facilitated by their research, the group of physicists were compelled to inform the public and their peers about the consequences of their work and that of other man-made threats to humanity.
The clock was originally designed as a cover image for the magazine’s June 1947 issue, at which point it was set at seven minutes to midnight to convey the urgency of the global nuclear climate at that time.
![Sony PlayStation Store 110 - Sony, [Digital]](https://i0.wp.com/i5.walmartimages.com/asr/5d3e8d52-3525-4e75-b862-10394c67a31c.c3f21de9f6a2f65537248191772f43b3.png?w=1380&ssl=1)
In the decades since, the clock has evolved to become an iconic symbol of the organisation and of fleeting human existence – a sentiment worth acknowledging, but only lightly, because you may otherwise risk triggering a self-inflicted existential crisis.
Since then, the Bulletin has sought to navigate the intersection of science, technology, politics, global security and journalism with its work, bringing existential clarity to the public, encouraging solution-oriented ideas, innovation and action, and engaging policymakers to help shape international policy.
The Bulletin has often been accused of using the “Doomsday Clock” as a scare-tactic and overly-catastrophic method of controlling public perspective to push political agenda.
But in actual fact, over the years since its inception, the clock’s hands have been moved not only forwards, but also backwards, 25 times.
Who decides when and how much the hands move?
Originally, and up until 1973 when he died, the annual time-setting of the clock was decidedby the Bulletin’s founding editor, Eugene Rabinowitch; one of the physicists who created the magazine alongside Einstein.
In the years since, and still today, this decision has been in the hands of a the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board, a group of scientists and experts in the fields of nuclear, climate and political science and policy.
The board meet twice a year to discuss the current global state and events of the past year, often seeking counsel from the the 13 Nobel Laureates that make up the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, and together these “globally recognized leaders” reset the clock accordingly.
Decisions are largely based on developments in three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change and disruptive technologies.
Why have the hands moved closer again?
According to the Bulletin, we are presently the closest to the metaphorical apocalypse than we have ever been before, largely because of the fallout of Russia’s war in Ukraine which the organisation describes as “a time of unprecedented danger.”
For both the countries directly involved in the conflict, Ukraine and Russia, as well as the rest of the global community, the ripples generated from this unfounded aggression have been vast and unrelenting.
Despite its own military’s actions being the root cause of the problem, as well as issuing continuous “thinly-veiled” nuclear threats to the US, the Kremlin has responded to the time advance with concern.
“The situation as a whole is really alarming,” said Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin, “this imposes on us a duty to be particularly careful, to be alert and to take appropriate measures.”
The Bulletin explain that as a result of this war, we’ve witnessed a breakdown in international communication, collaboration and conduct, resulting in a heightened threat of nuclear weapons being detonated by “accident, intention, or miscalculation,” and efforts to tackle the climate crisis being impeded.
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has increased the risk of nuclear weapons use, raised the specter of biological and chemical weapons use, hamstrung the world’s response to climate change, and hampered international efforts to deal with other global concerns,” says the Bulletin.
To reduce further risk to all parties, the Bulletin calls on governments and NATO to facilitate military-to-military dialogue and peace negotiations with Russia, immediately.
They urge that “in this time of unprecedented global danger, concerted action is required, and every second counts.”
Isn’t this just yet another overly-catastrophic narrative?
Yes, but also no.
The “Doomsday Clock” may feel a little over-dramatic, and getting bogged-down in the pessimistic narrative it inevitably inspires is certainly not advisable, but the mission of the Bulletin and their message is nonetheless still worth taking note of.
We do live in uncertain times, and although there are many hopeful and effective international efforts to combat the crises we face, these cannot be blindly relied on; an annual recalibration of global perspective in this way is beneficial.
Governments and governing bodies like the UN regularly attempt to instill the urgency of our present situation into public discourse, but often the only people listening to their high-level analysis, reports and science are those that are already similarly-minded.
It can seem like their messages just keep reverberating around the same echo chamber.
Perhaps though, the approach taken by Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in using the “Doomsday Clock” and its conjured imagery of humanity only having 90 seconds left on this planet (though an overly catastrophic misrepresentation of reality), is a simple enough symbol of urgency that serves as a much better method of inspiring change and action in ordinary people.
If you had one moment left to live, how would you choose to live it? Probably not advocating for an accelerated shift towards renewable energy sources, the green economy, or net zero emissions.
But given that this next moment in the history of the earth – and your life – is not in fact the final one as the clock implies, but is instead the defining one for yours and everyone else’s future, it might be a good idea to consider doing so.
Subscribe to our newsletter.
This article was originally published on IMPAKTER. Read the original article.