Tuesday, January 30, 2024

90 SECONDS TO MIDNIGHT (=Doomsday)!

A week ago (on Jan. 23), the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced the setting of what they call the Doomsday Clock. Contrary to my expectation, the clock was set the same as last year: 90 seconds to midnight (with midnight representing “doomsday”).

For 75 years now, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been announcing the setting of the Doomsday Clock. That nonprofit organization was founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and former Manhattan Project scientists. They introduced the Doomsday Clock two years later.

The first setting of the Clock was seven minutes to midnight. In 1949, with the explosion of a nuclear device by the Soviet Union and the beginning of the arms race, it was reset to three minutes before midnight.

The testing of the hydrogen bomb in 1952 led to resetting the Clock in the following January to just two minutes before doomsday. Relations between the U.S. and the USSR improved over the next few years, though, and in 1960 the hands on the Clock were moved back to seven minutes.

Over the next decades, the Doomsday Clock kept going up and down, reaching the farthest from midnight, 17 minutes, in 1991. But in 2002 it was back to seven minutes and has never been further since. In 2015 it was back down to three minutes where it started in 1947.

In January last year, the Clock was set at 90 seconds. the closest to midnight it had ever been, and it was kept at that setting last week. I expected it to be set even closer to “doomsday” because of the threat of expanding, and perhaps nuclear, war in the Levant.*

The threat of nuclear war was the main basis for setting the Doomsday Clock for the first 60 years. In 2007, however, climate change was added to the prospect of nuclear annihilation as another portentous threat to humankind, and the hands on the Clock were set at five minutes to midnight.

The announcement regarding this year’s setting of the Clock stated that there were four main considerations for determining that setting: 1) the many dimensions of nuclear threat, 2) an ominous climate change outlook, 3) evolving biological threats, and 4) the dangers of AI.**

How should we respond to the current setting of the Doomsday Clock? This question surely demands our thoughtful attention. Let me suggest three things:

1) Don’t ignore the Doomsday Clock. It would be easy to shrug off the Clock’s warning because of denial, indifference, or the unwillingness to face seriously the present predicament the world is in—or even just due to the pressure of meeting the demands of our everyday lives.

2) Don’t let the Doomsday Clock get you down. Depression, of course, is the result of feeling “down” for whatever reason. Too much attention to the Clock can certainly cause depression. Just as we shouldn’t ignore the clock, neither should we think about it “all the time.”

3) Work actively to elect candidates of the better political party, that is, the party working more consistently to deal with the dire problems besetting the whole world.

On the website linked to in the second footnote, we are told that the threats the world is currently facing “are of such a character and magnitude that no one nation or leader can bring them under control.”

They go on to state that “three of the world’s leading powers—the United States, China, and Russia—should commence serious dialogue about each of the global threats.”

Further, they contend that those three countries “need to take responsibility for the existential danger the world now faces. They have the capacity to pull the world back from the brink of catastrophe. They should do so, with clarity and courage, and without delay.”

I am not at all optimistic, though, that the three countries mentioned will even begin to do most of what is necessary to move the hands on the Doomsday Clock farther from midnight.

But I am quite sure there is much more possibility of that being done under the Democratic Party in the U.S. rather than by the MAGA party, which includes so many xenophobic people who, among other things, are also global warming and pandemic deniers--as well as deniers of the clear results of the 2020 presidential election. 

_____

  * I previously wrote about the Doomsday Clock in August 2020 (see here) and mentioned it briefly (here) in March 2018. Some things now are much the same, but there are some distinct differences also.

Note too that the Doomsday Clock elicits attention from around the world. See, for example, this Jan. 17 article from the Hindustan Times, an Indian English-language daily newspaper based in Delhi.

** See here for the official “2024 Doomsday Day Clock Statement” and related information. 

21 comments:

  1. Shortly after 6 a.m., I received an email with the following words from local Thinking Friend David Nelson, who is a retired ELCA (Lutheran) minister:

    "Martin Luther wrote, “if I knew the world would end tomorrow, I would plant a tree today.” I read that in the context of your Doomsday Clock post and recommit to living each day with passion and hope. I will follow your advice and vote for those who will serve with world peace with justice in mind. I will stay human and do my small part of assisting others to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, I much appreciate your affirmative response to this morning's blog post, and I certainly hope that many other Thinking Friends will respond/do the same as you.

      Delete
  2. About 30 minutes later, I received an email from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson, a retired seminary professor--and my New Testament professor in 1960:

    "Leroy, this is very timely as I look at the political mess we are in. I have never felt more anxious. My response to those four issues is probably about the same as yours. I take it seriously. I THINK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS THE ONE THAT GIVES ME SOME HOPE."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Hinson, I also appreciate your response to my blog post. The U.S., and the world, would not be in the mess it is in today if most Christian pastors and seminary professors (of all theological persuasions) had the same mindset and hope that you and TF David N. (see above) have.

      Delete
  3. A few minutes ago I received an email from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico. Here is just the first part of what she wrote:

    "Thank you for clarifying what the Doomsday Clock represents!

    "Unfortunately, I also have little hope that the three nations targeted to help prevent the arrival of Doomsday will do so."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Virginia, I just read and responded to Thinking Friend Charles Kiker's post below. And he wrote good, encouraging words about hope. But it was hope for something beyond/"above" this present world in which we live. I was disappointed that the main thing the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists wrote in their website heading "How to turn back the Clock" was what I quoted in blog article. If that's our best hope for preventing doomsday, I'm afraid it will actually be here quite soon.

      Delete
  4. Thanks for this article Leroy. I don't know how far we are from Midnight. I do know that we are in particularly perilous times. Von Rad, commenting on Genesis 1, notes regarding, ". . . and there was evening, and there was morning" that the formlessness of chaos revisits us daily, but morning breaks again. I note that the refrain is not repeated for the seventh day. The Priestly Poet lived in perilous times, probably shortly after the exile. I wonder if his omiission of the evening-morning refrain was his expression of hope, that the seventh day lived on in the not ended morning of the sixth. John the Revelator was certainly aware of darkness. But in his vision of the New Jerusalem, "there was no night there." We cannot be unaware of darkness at the border, in Gaza, in the threat of nuclear annihilation, in the threat of environmental disaster. But let us have hope, not wishful thinking, but hope. Let us hope!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Charles, for your pertinent, encouraging words!

      Delete
  5. I just now received the following comments from a Thinking Friend in Maryland:

    "...it does seem that there’s a qualitative difference between the risks at the height of the cold war, when the fear was that massive nuclear exchanges could end the world within hours, and now when the nuclear risks don’t seem quite so existential. The other threats may be existential over time, but not right away."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, TF, for these thoughtful comments. If the Doomsday Clock had been set in November 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, rather than in January 1963, it no doubt would have been set even closer to midnight as it is now. But the agreement betwen the US and the USSR that ended that crisis was so positive that the 1963 Clock was actually set five minutes further from midnight, at 12 minutes, than it had been from 1960~62. At the beginning of the cold war in 1952, the Clock was set at two minutes before midnight, and that remained its closest setting before midnight (tied in 2018) until 2020.

      There was quite probably more fear felt by the general public during those frightful years of the cold war than is generally felt by most people now. But this year (and last year's) closest settings ever include global warming, pandemics, and AI (this year), which were not considered earlier--and which so many people don't know--or don't care--much about since both are slower roads to "doomsday" than nuclear warfare. But the current possibility of the latter because of the Ukraine war, the Israel/Hamas war and the possibility of it expanding seriously in the Levant, the stance of North Korea (which is always a "loose cannon), etc. was instrumental, I think, in the Clock being set again this year at the closest to midnight it had ever been in the 75 years since its inception--and as I said in the blog post, I was surprised it was not set even closer this year because of the Israel/Hamas war, which of course only started in October of last year.

      Delete
    2. There is right now an existential threat to our democracy, and I most certainly agree w/ Leroy and others that the GOP as it has undergone the MAGA mutation magnifies that threat.

      Delete
  6. And then about 15 minutes ago I received this thoughtful email from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:

    "Thanks, as always, Leroy, for sharing your thoughts and insights. I too am greatly concerned, even alarmed, about the current world situation. The two issues I find most alarming are nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear miscalculation, and global warming. Many of the "emerging biological threats" are related to global warming. AI has the potential to be beneficial, but it is too often abused.
    .
    "I do not regard Russia, under its current leadership, as a reliable partner in addressing these issues, but I believe we can work with China, as it has shown some restraint. Israel also needs to show some restraint--maybe a lot of restraint, but so far that has not happened. I am afraid that these crises will spin further out of control without strong, wise leadership.

    I am not generally happy with Biden's foreign policy (i.e., too belligerent toward China and too supportive of Israel), but it is undoubtedly better than anything Trump has to offer, if he even has any foreign policy ideas aside from 'America First.'

    "The climate crisis requires a world effort since the climate affects everyone. More needs to be done and done quickly.

    "These are difficult, complex issues and much more could be said, but not in an email."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric, I much appreciate your thoughtful comments and agree with what you wrote. Regarding the climate crisis, as you know that is one of my compelling concerns, and at this point I am planning to address that issue again in my third blog post in February.

      Delete
  7. Neranyahu (sp?) seems to be a Lamechite. "I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Lamech seventy-seven fold." (Gen. 4:23-24)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’m in agreement with you, Leroy. I’ve been amazed that people aren’t more concerned about nuclear warfare’s increased prospects, especially as a result of a possible expansion of the Israel/Hamas war.

    Heading off this and all the other doomsday scenarios demands reasonable world leaders. I’m concerned that, in this country, our party politics and our present primary and election practices are not well suited to electing reasonable leaders. Possible improvements might be had by working toward better election practices, like ranked choice voting for both congress and the white house, and more political parties, as opposed to our present binary system, which does not encourage collaboration—or reason/wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Fred, for your comments and suggestions for how to improve the political situation in the U.S. It seems to me that ranked choice voting needs to be more widely implemented in local and even state elections, but I don't see how that would be feasible for presidential or congressional elections. Also, while I agree that it would be better if there were at least three or four political parties in the U.S., I can't see that becoming a reality for decades, if ever.

      The best hope, I think, is for the emergence of a more intelligent, "enlightened" electorate--but sadly, that is probably not going to happen for a long time, if ever, either. So, as you see, I am certainly not optimistic about the future of this country--or the world at large. And, sadly, I don't think I am being pessimistic, just realistic.

      Delete
  9. The comments above are in considerable agreement with the setting of the Doomsday Clock and what I wrote about it. But there are some people, although perhaps none of my Thinking Friends, who take a very negative view of it--for example, these words I just now read on the internet:

    "Leftist media outlets have really outdone themselves trying to convince Americans that the climate apocalypse is imminent.

    "Several legacy media outlets jumped on an opportunity to make ridiculous claims about the supposed threat of “climate disasters” using the insane “Doomsday Clock” analogy. USA Today, CNN and The Washington Post each claimed that there are “90 seconds to midnight” on the Doomsday Clock – meaning the world is reportedly the closest it has ever been to the “theoretical point of annihilation.” The outlets absurdly warned that the impending doom is in part due to climate change."

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/nicholas-schau/2024/01/31/doom-legacy-media-once-again-peddles-climate-propaganda

    ReplyDelete
  10. This morning a Thinking Friend told me about an online event with two people from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists speaking about this year's setting of the Doomsday Clock and what can be done about it. I have just now registered for that free event, and here is information regarding how you could do the same if you so desire (just highlight all the following and click on the prompt):
    https://engage.uchicago.edu/index.php/email/emailWebview?md_id=47035&email=MjUwLUNRSC05MzYAAAGRCc4fmP5aZ_czsWY0iShmJJ3uhG64ckYyyEInarbLyjY09O7LzdCwanL6Zu1J-2nzA1Qm5Jp2-ENXLvYQEt0nrcr-h4gkQT0BMA

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thinking Friend Kevin Heifner in Arkansas posted the following comments on Facebook (where I had linked to this blog piece) yesterday:

    "Thank you for this thoughtful post. I remain concerned, yet hopeful… And determined to do what I can as well. I concur with your characterization of the political parties. There were multiple thoughtful comments by your thinking friends which I found beneficial."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Isaac Asimov many years ago wrote a sci-fi trilogy called Foundation. In it a group of individuals seek to control the flow of man's development but with a minimum of involvement. This all sounds nicely utopian until a 'mutant' is born. The Foundation is no longer in control. Like you, Bro. Leroy, I am not overly optimistic about a quick solution to the problems moving the clock to ninety seconds. Where would a powerful 'mutant' have to appear to change the course of events?

    Climate change may be a worldwide concern that will impact all of us. Sooner than that I see events in the Asian theater demanding a faster response. If China tells Taiwan we are coming, what recourse does that country have? Our mutual defense treaty in the western Pacific (SEATO?) will have little to say without a strong US presence. Will we make our presence felt or simply apply more economic pressure? At this point I don't see that course of action accomplishing much. China will have Taiwan and begin to cast its economic eyes on the Philippines and other parts of eastern Asia as well as soft spots in Africa. From my limited perspective, Xi has the same vision Putin would like to have, a Greater China. Maybe ninety seconds isn't close enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Tom. I have wanted to read more by and about Asimov, but I have known nothing about the sci-fi trilogy you referred to. That is a thought-provoking question with which you ended the first paragraph.

      I have also never known much about SEATO (although I like the sound of the acronym!), but it was formed in 1954 when you were a young lad. I don't know how much power it would have to keep the People's Republic of China from taking over Taiwan fully, and certainly there would be little chance of that without the mighty presence of the U.S. But I would rather the U.S. continue to use economic pressure (sanctions) to keep the PRC from gaining control of Taiwan (which is still officially the Republic of China) than to use military force. It is the potential use of nuclear weapons in East Asia, in Ukraine, and now in the Levant that is a large part of the reason the Doomsday Clock was left at 90 seconds to midnight.

      Delete