- Jul 20, 2016
- 6,572
- 20,209
There's been a fair amount of discussion about whether or not the Doomsday Clock would move closer to midnight on January 20th. I've known about the clock in general but took some time to find out more about it. And....... good thing I did.
The idea for a formal discussion of the world-wide nuclear situation has beginnings (1945 -1947) with the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project (group of scientists, many from Germany, who developed the nuclear bombs used on Japan during WW 2). They began with annual newsletters from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists discussing the use, development, and government stances on nuclear weapons. In later years, it expanded to all nuclear technologies and most recently, to climate change (2007).
The obvious question is - who makes the decision. We used to trust info from informed sources, but the last few years have taught us to ask questions.
In 1962 the world held its breath with Cuban Missile crises when Russia brought missiles to Cuba, which is very close to the US. (I have memories of my parents and other adults having quiet discussions among themselves. I knew something was wrong but not what.) The hands were actually moved back in 1963 because of the change in communications between the US and Russia.
thebulletin.org
All in all, it seems like an interesting idea - smart people who know the ins and outs of a subject come together in consensus on a topic. So, next step is look at the rationale for not moving the clock in 2022. And........ for me, this where some questions arise. If anyone has actually read the Paris Accord (I think I made a post about this awhile back), then they will realize that it is a NGO (non-government organization) that operates as a non-profit with financial support from the members and/or public. Therein lies the potential for shenanigans. Then I found beliefs promulgated by the far left groups. Putting all of this together, I see the Doomsday Clock group as a captured organization. So, nope.
From the 2022 notes:
There are some other comments about technologies that may affect human freedoms, as well as specifics on the actions in other countries. However, in general, I find that the "deciders" have moved far from the original intent of the clock and are unabashed advocates of a political system.
The idea for a formal discussion of the world-wide nuclear situation has beginnings (1945 -1947) with the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project (group of scientists, many from Germany, who developed the nuclear bombs used on Japan during WW 2). They began with annual newsletters from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists discussing the use, development, and government stances on nuclear weapons. In later years, it expanded to all nuclear technologies and most recently, to climate change (2007).
Co-editor Hyman Goldsmith asked artist Martyl Langsdorf to come up with a design for the cover of the June 1947 edition of the Bulletin, the first issue published as a magazine rather than a newsletter. Martyl—as she was known professionally—was married to a physicist, Alexander Langsdorf, who worked on the Manhattan Project while at the University of Chicago.
At first the artist considered using the symbol for uranium. But as she listened to the scientists who had worked on the Bomb, as they passionately debated the consequences of the new technology and their responsibility to inform the public, she felt their sense of urgency. So she sketched a clock to suggest that we didn’t have much time left to get atomic weapons under control.
The obvious question is - who makes the decision. We used to trust info from informed sources, but the last few years have taught us to ask questions.
In the early days, Bulletin Editor Eugene Rabinowitch decided whether the hand should be moved. A scientist himself, fluent in Russian, and a leader in the international disarmament movement, he was in constant conversation with scientists and experts within and outside governments in many parts of the world. Based on these discussions, he decided where the clock hand should be set and explained his thinking in the Bulletin’s pages.
When Rabinowitch died in 1973, the Bulletin’s Science and Security Boardtook over the responsibility and has since met twice a year to discuss world events and reset the clock as necessary. The board is made up of scientists and other experts with deep knowledge of nuclear technology and climate science, who often provide expert advice to governments and international agencies. They consult widely with their colleagues across a range of disciplines and also seek the views of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, which includes 13 Nobel Laureates.
In 1962 the world held its breath with Cuban Missile crises when Russia brought missiles to Cuba, which is very close to the US. (I have memories of my parents and other adults having quiet discussions among themselves. I knew something was wrong but not what.) The hands were actually moved back in 1963 because of the change in communications between the US and Russia.
They were not moved during the 10-day crisis because too little was known at the time about the circumstances of the standoff or what the outcome would be. In fact, after the crisis, US and Soviet leaders installed a direct telephone line for communication, and within months signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty outlawing underground nuclear weapons testing—the first treaty addressing the nuclear weapons threat. On the basis of these steps, the Bulletin set the clock back from seven minutes to midnight to 12 minutes to midnight in 1963.
FAQ - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Overview Current Time FAQ Timeline Dashboard Multimedia Virtual Tour The Bulletin has reset the minute hand on the Doomsday Clock 24 times since its debut in 1947, most recently in 2020 when we moved it from two minutes to midnight to 100 seconds to midnight. Every time it is reset, we’re...
thebulletin.org
All in all, it seems like an interesting idea - smart people who know the ins and outs of a subject come together in consensus on a topic. So, next step is look at the rationale for not moving the clock in 2022. And........ for me, this where some questions arise. If anyone has actually read the Paris Accord (I think I made a post about this awhile back), then they will realize that it is a NGO (non-government organization) that operates as a non-profit with financial support from the members and/or public. Therein lies the potential for shenanigans. Then I found beliefs promulgated by the far left groups. Putting all of this together, I see the Doomsday Clock group as a captured organization. So, nope.
From the 2022 notes:
Last year’s leadership change in the United States provided hope that what seemed like a global race toward catastrophe might be halted and—with renewed US engagement—even reversed. Indeed, in 2021 the new American administration changed US policies in some ways that made the world safer: agreeing to an extension of the New START arms control agreement and beginning strategic stability talks with Russia; announcing that the United States would seek to return to the Iran nuclear deal; and rejoining the Paris climate accord. Perhaps even more heartening was the return of science and evidence to US policy making in general, especially regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. A more moderate and predictable approach to leadership and the control of one of the two largest nuclear arsenals of the world marked a welcome change from the previous four years.
And while the new US administration made progress in reestablishing the role of science and evidence in public policy, corruption of the information ecosystem continued apace in 2021. One particularly concerning variety of internet-based disinformation infected America last year: Waves of internet-enabled lies persuaded a significant portion of the US public to believe the utterly false narrative contending that Joe Biden did not win the US presidential election in 2020. Continued efforts to foster this narrative threaten to undermine future US elections, American democracy in general, and, therefore, the United States’ ability to lead global efforts to manage existential risk.
The new US administration has done much to reestablish the role of scientists in informing public policy, and even more to minimize deliberate confusion and chaos emanating from the White House. Thoughtful deliberation—merely a promise in January 2021—appears to be realized more often today. On the other hand, disinformation fomented outside the executive branch—including from some members of Congress and many state leaders—appears to have taken root in alarming and dangerous ways.
There are some other comments about technologies that may affect human freedoms, as well as specifics on the actions in other countries. However, in general, I find that the "deciders" have moved far from the original intent of the clock and are unabashed advocates of a political system.
