Slashdot Mirror


Doomsday Clock Remains at Five Minutes to Midnight

Lasrick writes "The Doomsday Clock remains at 5 minutes to midnight. In a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and members of the UN Security Council, the Bulletin announced its decision and how it was made. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin's Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new technologies emerging in other domains." Reasons for the clock remaining at five minutes include the U.S. and Russian not doing much for disarmament increasing nuclear weapon stockpiles in India and China, stalled efforts to reduce carbon emissions globally, and "killer robots."

222 comments

  1. North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have an unstable dictatorship in range of several extremely wealthy Asian nations with mutual defense treaties. World War III is just one temper tantrum away.

    1. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's obsession with alarmism"

      FTFY

      it is and has always been an excuse for (insert administration) to do what ever the F#$&^%* they want to do anyway.

    2. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We have an unstable dictatorship in range of several extremely wealthy Asian nations with mutual defense treaties. World War III is just one temper tantrum away.

      There's an ocean between Asia and the US...

    3. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The US is a wealthy Asian nation now? Wow that invasion was a quiet one...

    4. Re:North Korea by vikingpower · · Score: 0

      "We, the USA, are a financially-not-so-stable dictatorship that thinks itself extremely wealthy. World War III is just one temper tantrum away".

      There, FTFY.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    5. Re:North Korea by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hence the inclusion of global warming as a criteria?

      (ducks)

    6. Re:North Korea by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      If you're looking for continental drift, don't blink! You might miss it!

    7. Re:North Korea by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Thanks, exactly. The whole "doomsday" metric is stupid.

    8. Re:North Korea by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I don't see a WWIII senerio with North Korea. If they actually get able to make a nuke and deploy it. They will probably hit Sourth Korea which is bad. However the SC and its mutual defense treaties will just kill them even with conventional warfare, because they will not be able to make more nuke and deploy them soon after that.

      China is the wild card... However I don't seem them getting too involved with this if the attack was unprovoked.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:North Korea by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      Exactly.
      Its calculation are based on political biases, then actual fact to make a good calculation.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:North Korea by bob_super · · Score: 2

      "World War III" would require a lot of people involved.
      If Little-Fat-Kim nukes anyone, he's going to be playing Saddam-on-ice for a few weeks, while a lot of people use his oppressed citizens as testbenches for their latest cool weapons.

      Not a world war, and hardly doomsday outside of the radius of the first nuke, and maybe Pyongyang.

    11. Re:North Korea by gnick · · Score: 1

      Yep - Apparently, we're exactly 5 minutes from global warming destroying the planet. I guess "The Day After Tomorrow" was just too optimistic.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    12. Re:North Korea by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, yeah.

      Not that climate change isn't something to watch (no matter who or what is at fault), but when you consider that (barring an asteroid) climate changes are on a far longer timescale than, say, massive thermonuclear war? Methinks the clock maintainers are looking for new and scarier boogeymen to conjure up, since the end of the Cold War pretty much took away the biggest one they had.

      In all reality, there are plenty of things that could spell 'doomsday', even without human action towards that end - problem is, they're kind of unpredictable. Supercalderas/Supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts, Coronal Mass Ejections, you-name-it... can't do jack about those, though, so they have to find something they can point to and say "OMG you need to change your behavior NOW!" I'll leave the validity and urgency of these warnings as an exercise to the individual reader, as your mileage may vary.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    13. Re:North Korea by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NK attacking its neighbors would be a horrible tragedy, but would certainly not trigger "World War III". China is very sick of Kim Jong Un's crazy shit. The only reason they still prop up the regime is because they don't want 25 million starving refugees pouring into their country.

    14. Re:North Korea by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed 100%.

      Instead of focusing on the negative how about focusing on the postive and start calling it the Peace Clock -- A countdown of the progress for every nation to stop waging idiotic wars with one another ??

    15. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that another full-scale war on the Korean peninsula will not be World War III, but it would still be an ugly, big war, the likes of which we haven't seen since the last full-scale war on the peninsula. (BTW, the Korean War never technically ended, and the two Koreas still occasionally exchange shots.)

      The North has many prepared defenses: underground hardened facilities, the highest density air defenses in the world, massive amounts of artillery (a lot of which is already in range of Seoul; with large numbers of missiles in range of Japan, and a small number that might be able to hit the U.S. west coast), natural mountainous terrain (not really high altitude, but it lowers land mobility and targeting by a significant factor), huge numbers of infiltration teams, large numbers of conventional forces, and chemical weapons that they are probably willing to use (the prevaling winds blow towards South Korea).

      The possibility of Chinese intervention on the North's side, has always been a concern, but I'd say the odds are (thankfully) very slowly decreasing over time.

    16. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, genius, there was one other actor in the OP that wasn't a wealthy Asian nation. Go back and read it again...

    17. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Hence the inclusion of global warming as a criterion?" or "Hence the inclusion of global warming as one of the criteria?" would be acceptable. "a" is the singular indefinite article. "Criteria" is a plural word.

    18. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The danger from North Korea and Iran isn't that they'll use the weapons themselves. They know the retaliation would be swift and sure.

      The danger is that a weapon will turn up in the hands of an organization that would detonate it.

    19. Re:North Korea by bob_super · · Score: 2

      If by "Seoul" you mean "collateral damage area 1, in which innocent civilians were killed, demonstrating that $dictator was evil and needed to be removed", you do have a point that for a few inconsequential people, the war would not be clean.
      Whether Seoul would really turn into Dresden rather than Sderot remains to be seen. The ability of North Korea to inflict more than a propaganda strike on anyone else is seriously limited.
      One would hope that the US and Korean military have a whole bunch of tools ready to unleash to convince parts of LFK's army that not all orders should be followed.

      But it's not doomsday, barely a small quick regional conflict which might involve a few nukes.
      And it's not going to happen, because Kim likes to be alive and knows his odds (actually he has more to worry about his generals doing something stupid so we take him out), and the South Korean and Chinese do not want an influx of refugees.

      What's the song? "I hope the [Koreans] love their children too"

    20. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if North Korea nukes South Korea then South Carolina will attack the North Koreans? That's like a crazy soap opera kind of thing going on there but I can see it working out.

      Heck, about a dozen poachers from South Carolina could take out all of North Korea in about 10 days... 12 if it's during the Super Bowl weekend.

    21. Re:North Korea by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Looking at the Doomsday Clock graph over the years there is a cyclic pattern. A gradual decline to doom is suddenly followed by a sharp rise, as though collectively the world recoils. But the forces for and against war and destruction are not instant, but rather take years of lead time. The process is much like the forces underlying earthquakes. Plates are moved by deep forces and sometimes they stick and unstick, but sometimes they get stuck long enough to build up enough energy to release violently. The cyclic ripple of the clock as well as the earthquake analogy suggests that a more detailed interface should also be compiled to show decisions and actions that work for and against war.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    22. Re:North Korea by lennier · · Score: 1

      The whole "doomsday" metric is stupid.

      I prefer the Kerr metric myself, but I suppose you could say anything with an event horizon is pretty much doomsday...

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    23. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they could start monitoring the NSA, and go negative minutes (minutes past midnight).

    24. Re:North Korea by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      ""The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's obsession with alarmism"

      FTFY"

      +1 Virtual Mod Point

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    25. Re:North Korea by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yea, 1.445E+38 years till peace!

    26. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, LFK doesn't even need nukes in order to turn Seoul into a sea of fire and death. I was there a few years back, and noticed that the border was less than an hour from Seoul, only about fifty kilometres or so. The artillery batteries of the North Korean People's Army have an effective maximum range of roughly sixty kilometres. They just need to get the order to fire, and there will be no warning for the south and no feasible defence. The first salvo would already cause great destruction.

    27. Re:North Korea by quantaman · · Score: 1

      So what happens if nuclear-armed China and India lose 38% and 25% of their food production capability? It's not something to worry about in the next decade but beyond that if GW really starts taking a bite out of their food production... If I was going to put my money on something triggering a nuclear war that would be it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    28. Re:North Korea by Shalhav · · Score: 1

      It's not something to worry about in the next decade but beyond that ...

      Unfortunately, there are those that want to commit hundreds of billions of dollars right now to GW instead of things that we know right now will make a difference. If we committed that much to every "what if" we couldn't do anything else.

    29. Re:North Korea by quantaman · · Score: 1

      It's not something to worry about in the next decade but beyond that ...

      Unfortunately, there are those that want to commit hundreds of billions of dollars right now to GW instead of things that we know right now will make a difference. If we committed that much to every "what if" we couldn't do anything else.

      By that logic if you have a cancer that's not going to bother you for the next couple months you'd suggested waiting until the tumour starts causing issues before you get it treated.

      If you accept that GW is both likely and serious it's logical to start spending money now.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    30. Re:North Korea by Shalhav · · Score: 1

      By that logic if you have a cancer that's not going to bother you for the next couple months you'd suggested waiting until the tumour starts causing issues before you get it treated.

      Not a good analogy and not my logic. The phenomenology of cancer is much better understood than GW.

    31. Re:North Korea by quantaman · · Score: 1

      By that logic if you have a cancer that's not going to bother you for the next couple months you'd suggested waiting until the tumour starts causing issues before you get it treated.

      Not a good analogy and not my logic. The phenomenology of cancer is much better understood than GW.

      Actually I think the analogy is stronger than I first intended. There's also some cancers that are fairly benign and will never cause an issue (what you believe for GW), treating those is probably more harm than good. There's also some people who have cancers that are legitimate threats, and delay treatment or look for alternative medicine because the side effects of treatment are so serious (what I believe of the position you're taking on GW).

      Treating the benign cancers causes a lot of unnecessary side effects, but delaying treatment of a legitimately dangerous cancer makes the side effects of eventual treatment that much worse and potentially costs you your opportunity to treat it. I believe the evidence suggests GW is something worth treating now.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    32. Re:North Korea by Shalhav · · Score: 1
      We have past experience with cancer and how it progresses. There are variations in individuals, of course, but we have good retrospective data on risks. With GW, we have no retrospective data on (hypothesized) large effects, hence no test of the magnitude or time scale for them. Furthermore, climatologists, leaving alone their predictions for the future, can't even use their current models and current data to propagate variables backwards in time to agree with earlier measurements.

      I believe the evidence suggests GW is something worth treating now.

      "Suggests" is not enough to warrant investing barrels of money, taking away money from other obvious and immediate problems (poverty, disease ... etc). Perhaps you meant "almost certain" instead of "suggests". I don't have confidence (yet) in GW advocate's models for reasons given above.

  2. Killer Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes, killer robots.

    1. Re:Killer Robots by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Yep, they exist, and they're basically manifestations of people killing each other just like every other weapon is. Not good, but not worse than what we had before.

    2. Re:Killer Robots by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yep, they exist, and they're basically manifestations of people killing each other just like every other weapon is. Not good, but not worse than what we had before.

      Also, not nuclear powered, which is what the Doomsday Clock primarily measures.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Killer Robots by crashcy · · Score: 1

      Except for Gipsy Danger. Which is nuclear powered. And analog.

    4. Re:Killer Robots by hermitdev · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a nuclear powered doomsday clock would be worth paying attention to.

    5. Re:Killer Robots by Talderas · · Score: 1

      What happens if it melts down? How would be able to read it?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  3. DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, this particular instrument has always been a "be afraid, due to mangled metaphor" instrument for PR, and never really meant anything meaningful and measurable.

    I mean, we do lack an objective instrument for how screwed we are as a species, but "any minute now" is just a terribly uninformative model.

    1. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yup. It's like a less useful Homeland Security threat level color.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Yup. It's like a less useful Homeland Security threat level color.

      Now there's a comparison I never thought I'd see..

    3. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, we do lack an objective instrument for how screwed we are as a species, but "any minute now" is just a terribly uninformative model.

      Especially when we've been "minutes from DOOM" for 60-some-odd years already.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean, a PR stunt that says "don't start a nuclear war, ya doffers" wasn't necessarily a bad idea back then, but its continuation as an "institution" really just ruins its credibility.

    5. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you notice? We already had the global catastrophe. Complete with nuclear bombs, intercontinental missiles, and everything else. I've seen it in the cinema!

    6. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clock must equate "1 day" as the galactic year.

      So it's the last five minutes of a 91250000000 days long "day".

    7. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows how a clock works. It just goes forwards, but you can turn the clock hands back. In other words: if nothing is done, the world is doomed, but there are ways to prevent it. Moving the clock hands is also an easy way to state that there has been either good or bad development.

      We don't know how long one doomsday clock minute is and the progression is certainly non-linear and arbitrary, but these do not really matter at all. We are only interested in which direction it is going.

      And yes, it is a PR instrument. It's a lot more interesting than just stating things have gone better or worse. By selecting the direction you can say "better" or "worse", and by selecting the magnitude of change you can say "a little", "a lot", "not at all" and so on.

    8. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      I disagree... It sounds much better as the chorus of a song like "Two Minutes to Midnight" where as "Threat Level Orange" just doesn't roll of the tongue as easily.

    9. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yup.

      At this point, it's no longer "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," and more "That geriatric motherfucker that won't stop calling about those kids on his lawn."

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Nothing offends political alarmists more than good news. In this case, the systematic "burning" of Cold War nuclear weapons as commercial fuel to light the very cities they once threatened. So the Doomsday Clock alarmists are moving the goalposts once again. Apparently the doomsday being measured now includes manmade climate change.

    11. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by ISoldat53 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And you can't rhyme anything with it.

    12. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by hermitdev · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my first thought was "And, in other news, not one fuck was given."

    13. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, it's kinda silly to compare an environmental disaster that will moderately drop the potential carrying capacity of the planet to nuclear annihilation, as even being the same order of magnitude of danger. It makes climate change harder to take seriously, which is bad, because it's important(just not anywhere near as important as not starting a nuclear war).

    14. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Well, I'm a little concerned that I used the word "doffers" without actually knowing what it means, and that's tangentially related!

    15. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Our idea of keeping the peace is mutually assured destruction, therefore we will be minutes away until that changes.

    16. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Kenja · · Score: 1

      sporangium (sp-rnj-m)
      n. pl. sporangia (-j-)
      A single-celled or many-celled structure in which spores are produced, as in fungi, algae, mosses, and ferns. Also called spore case.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    17. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The doomsday clock accumulates the new fears of western elites like some sort of alarmist meme flypaper.

      In truth, the doomsday clock represents exactly that set of things you should not worry about. The thing that will actually blow up our world will be deliberately excluded from the list because that thing will enjoy the highest degree of political immunization. Right up until it all goes pear shaped.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    18. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      No, that's completely unreasonable. I'm not unconcerned with climate change. It's a serious problem from any sort of critical analysis. It just doesn't map to "anything could happen and we all die" in the slightest.

    19. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Threat Level Orange sounds like a bad "Made for SyFy" movie title.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    20. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by mcrbids · · Score: 2

      I would love to see you propose something better and implement it. The truth is that we live in a world that was quite literally saved by a single guy who refused to follow orders.

      But it's not like he was the only one. There was this guy and also (arguably) this guy.

      To realize just how close we really came, this movie is an eye opener.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    21. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And "5 Minutes to Midnight" sounds like one made for the Lifetime channel.

    22. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by jandrese · · Score: 2

      In the long run Climate Change could be that bad, but unlike Nuclear Weapons you aren't going to wake up tomorrow to discover that Kansas has turned to dust. The whole concept of a Doomsday clock doesn't really make sense when you're talking about a slow process.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    23. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      What would the United nations and Nobel laureates gain from keeping people in fear?
      Does it make more sense as a symbolic simplification used to maintain awareness of the current problems faced by the UN?
      The reasons change, so its not a countdown, and clearly is not a time scale. Moving closer to midnight means things got worse, away means better. It's a report summary in pictures, if you prefer that.

    24. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by ybanrab · · Score: 1

      A doffer is a person who works in the textile trade, collecting full spindles and replacing them with empty ones.

      Maybe 'duffer', in UK slang someone who is stupid, and/or unskilled and/or bad at sport. Useless.

    25. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'm just opposed to trying to pretend there's an objective numeric component to any of it.

    26. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just not anywhere near as important as not starting a nuclear war)

      but it could lead to worldwide food shortages and mass migrations, which in turn would lead to the worst characteristics of humans popping up all over the place.

    27. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I would prefer a one way ticket to midnight.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    28. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, climate change is a long term compound growth problem. The sooner you fix the compound growth issue the less likely the bad scenarios happen.

      It is an issue that needs action sooner, rather than later. Wether it is a 1, 2 or 5 minutes to midnight issue is actually something we will only know in 50 years. When we know the kinds of things that will go wrong, and we know just how much carbon we need to get out of the atmosphere. Before then, all we know is we will need to pull carbon out of the atmosphere in the future based on current production growth trends. We just don't know how much.

    29. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of a doomsday clock isn't to cause you to live in fear. It is to compel you to action. The time remaining is how much time you have left to act. It isn't "The entire world stops after this point".

      I can understand your confusion however, since the clock was created to represent Nuclear Annihilation. But even then it was intended to compel governments to action to prevent that event.

      Just because Climate Change isn't going to wipe out X million people tomorrow (or the day after), doesn't mean that the time to take action isn't in the next 5 minutes (figuratively speaking).

    30. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      If we're acting on predictions, then we must also trust in the adequacy of the existing predictions of consequence, no? Taking a "we just don't know" approach with a paranoid degree of caution isn't really any more reasonable than the deniers "we just don't know so lets do what we want". It's using ignorance as a justification for an action, which I can't defend.

    31. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by lennier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the systematic "burning" of Cold War nuclear weapons as commercial fuel to light the very cities they once threatened.

      Admittedly WWIII would also have lit the cities extremely well... for a couple of microseconds.

      I think the generation who grew up after the 1980s don't really grasp just how intensely we 80s kids felt the shadow of nuclear war. You can't really understand 80s culture without that; it seeps into almost every part of art and culture from 1980-1989, especially New Wave music. Climate change and the War on Terror combined? They don't even begin to approach a fraction of the existential certainty of absolute destruction we felt. (Though we had both back then too; watch 1973's "Soylent Green" and you'll see global warming as part of the backdrop). And the relief at WWIII being postponed when the Wall fell... quickly turning to disgust as capitalism ate everything...

      "I wanted to run through the street yelling, to grab them all and say: 'Every day from this day on is a gift. Use it well!' Instead, I got drunk."

      That right there is everything you need to know about Generation X and why we feel so burned out on life. But, hey, alive after twenty, and not expecting to be, and every day we don't have a nuclear apocalypse is a good day. And every nuclear warhead destroyed and turned into toxic but not explosive nuclear fuel is a win.

      But the nukes are still there, and the missiles are being repurposed as 'conventional' warheads, and that's sure going to end well for all concerned. Before, identifying nuclear attack was easy: an unscheduled ICBM launch means you push the button. Under Prompt Global Strike, how do you tell if an incoming ICBM signature is a nuke warhead or a conventional warhead? You don't. You guess. That's.... nice.

      So, the Doomsday clock is still relevant and I for one am glad it's there. To remind us all of what once was, the shadow we lived under, and the shadow that still hasn't completely gone away.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    32. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Call now! Quantities are limited!

      The immediacy of the message is lost when you use it for multiple decades. The Doomsday clock should have been retired at the end of the cold war. It's a relic, even if it's underlying message is basically still true.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    33. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by khallow · · Score: 1

      The purpose of a doomsday clock isn't to cause you to live in fear. It is to compel you to action.

      To compel you to action by causing fear and consternation. Such things can be useful if there is a valid reason for the fear and consternation.

      Just because Climate Change isn't going to wipe out X million people tomorrow (or the day after)

      Does anyone speak of obesity "wiping out" people even though it probably kills more people per unit time now than climate change ever will?

    34. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by operagost · · Score: 1

      And people are being paid for this useless, purely political exercise.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The key is to be confident, and just say stuff whether you know its true or not.

      Its worked for slashdot submitters and editors for years now!

    36. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      I think the generation who grew up after the 1980s don't really grasp just how intensely we 80s kids felt the shadow of nuclear war.

      You think you kids in the 80's had it bad, what about us from the 1950's and 60's? Duck and cover drills in grade school and the tension of the Cuban missile crisis. I was worried that I would never get old enough to lose my virginity.

      Now get off my lawn!

    37. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as a "Anonymous Coward" here ^_^ What a funny thought! I had forgotten about the so called "Dooms Day Clock". If a shift in conscious awareness is doomsday, then doomsday it is. Fear creates fear and fear co-creates prophecy. Therefore,
      as long as you believe in the basic evil of man, then you must project upon yourself great punishment. You must see your world
      destroyed, as so will you have prophets to tell you so, and so they will speak the truth, for they will speak from your own beliefs in the idea of your own evil; http://www.focusonrecovery.net/originanddestination/Prophecy.html

    38. Re:DOOOOOOOMED by Reziac · · Score: 1

      TIME: SUCKS

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  4. Am I blind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is there no links?

    1. Re:Am I blind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your links belong to us.

  5. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the doomsday clock is a fucking joke?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a joke. It's just 3 minutes slow

  6. wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, I understand nuclear weapons stockpiles, and natural catastrophes... but "killer robots"? Isn't the doomsday clock supposed to indicate how close we are to global disaster? How does "killer robots" enter in exactly? I mean in the real world, not in the Terminator universe.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:wait wait wait.... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 0

      Because even sometimes very smart people use fiction as a basis for their beliefs.

      Think about the number of intelligent people you know who have, in their lives, believed Atlas Shrugged was meaningful commentary on economic systems.

    2. Re:wait wait wait.... by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      I think thats a reference to Drones?

      Not entirely sure how thats an existential threat to humanity, unless AI research has gotten a lot darker since I last looked at it?

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re:wait wait wait.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Not entirely sure how thats an existential threat to humanity

      The threat doesn't have to be existential. Nukes are our own doing, for example.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:wait wait wait.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      They changed how the setting of the Clock is chosen a few years back... now it includes anything those making the decision believe to represent a "global threat".

      The Clock has always been more political than anything else (the Bulletin being mostly an advocate for arms control and elimination), the change just made that more open.

    5. Re:wait wait wait.... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      That's not the correct parsing of "existential threat", which means a "a threat to continued existence as a species" not "a threat related to to the philosophy of existentialism"

    6. Re:wait wait wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or the number of supposedly intelligent people who think 'society' is a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

      or the number of supposedly intelligent people who think they have the ability and capacity to know best what choices other people should make.

    7. Re:wait wait wait.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Ah. Forget I said anything, then.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:wait wait wait.... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Um, no? That really has no bearing on what I said whatsoever, and kinda just makes you look crazy.

      We're talking about people using fiction to justify their beliefs, not "things I disagree with theater"

    9. Re:wait wait wait.... by Prune · · Score: 1

      This was covered on Slashdot less than a week ago, link inlcuded: http://bos.sagepub.com/content/70/1/32.full

      The article discusses at length the detailed concerns, but just to demonstrate that this is taken seriously far beyond the doomsday clock group, I quote here an excerpt related to that specific point:

      Challenging the assumption of the inevitability of autonomous weapons and building on the work of earlier activists, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations, was launched in April 2013. This effort has made remarkable progress in its first year. In May, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Christof Heyns, recommended that nations immediately declare moratoriums on their own development of lethal autonomous robotics (Heyns, 2013). Heyns also called for a high-level study of the issue, a recommendation seconded in July by the UN Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. At the UN General Assemblyâ(TM)s First Committee meeting in October, a flood of countries began to express interest or concern, including China, Russia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. France called for a mandate to discuss the issue under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a global treaty that restricts excessively injurious or indiscriminate weapons. Meeting in Geneva in November, the state parties to the Convention agreed to formal discussions on autonomous weapons, with a first round in May 2014. The issue has been placed firmly on the global public and diplomatic agenda.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:wait wait wait.... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      If you had watched the documentary correctly, the killer robots are only temporarily delayed by the particle accelerator.
      Since they are currently upgrading the LHC, the robots are free to kill us all.

      Once the LHC is at full power, we'll be protected again.

    11. Re:wait wait wait.... by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      Ok, I understand nuclear weapons stockpiles, and natural catastrophes... but "killer robots"? Isn't the doomsday clock supposed to indicate how close we are to global disaster? How does "killer robots" enter in exactly? I mean in the real world, not in the Terminator universe.

      Hey, you keep your hands off my killer robot! Look, he's soooo cuuuuute! The ladies really go for the whole killer robot thing, you know. They are so dark and mysterious, and it goes without saying that they imbue their geek masters with irresistable sexiness.

      So yeah, killer robots w00t! ... what was the question again?

    12. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so, works of fiction. How about The Lathe of Heaven for the first one, and Phillip Dru: Administrator for the second?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      They changed how the setting of the Clock is chosen a few years back... now it includes anything those making the decision believe to represent a "global threat".

      The Clock has always been more political than anything else (the Bulletin being mostly an advocate for arms control and elimination), the change just made that more open.

      Ok, thanks. So it's just political now. Nothing to see here, then.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    14. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that killer robots weren't a concern. They most definitely are, on many levels; in capabilities, things that could go wrong, and the whole philosophy of autonomous lethal weapons. What I'm pointing out is that the doomsday clock was supposed to cover, you know, Doomsday: The extinction of humanity. If that is not what the doomsday clock is for anymore, someone should change the wiki. And we probably need a different indicator, that indicates, you know, actual doomsday, because that would be useful.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    15. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      If you had watched the documentary correctly, the killer robots are only temporarily delayed by the particle accelerator.
      Since they are currently upgrading the LHC, the robots are free to kill us all.

      Once the LHC is at full power, we'll be protected again.

      I.... completely missed..... that documentary. I'll have to see if Netflix has it...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    16. Re:wait wait wait.... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      It depends how you define "killer robot" if you are thinking cylons then no but if you are thinking about something like UAVs loaded with weapons and ready for war with operators sitting comfortably miles away from any danger then yes killer robot.

    17. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      This is the problem when a concept is misused for political purposes -- look at the replies -- the doomsday clock is already considered a joke. And this is not a good thing.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    18. Re:wait wait wait.... by Prune · · Score: 1

      In the long run, it may actually bring on an extinction event, so I see no reason for it to be excluded. It's probably more likely than wide-scale nuclear war over the coming decades, and in the worst case, potentially more thorough than it as well (after all, even in the case of global nuclear winter, there would still be survivors).

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    19. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      In the long run, a single small arms round has the potential to bring on an extinction event.

      I'm not saying that small things can't have large consequences. I'm saying that's not a good use for something called The Doomsday Clock.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    20. Re:wait wait wait.... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because, to some people, the method of someone being killed is more important than the fact they were killed to begin with. See: Syria's chemical weapon attacks last year.

      One hundred thousand people dead from bullets and explosives, Obama, the US Department of State, the collective foreign policies of Europe, and anyone else that isn't directly sharing a border with Syria could give a fuck. One hundred people dead from Sarin, OH BOY LET'S INVADE! LET'S SANCTION! BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF DAMASCUS!!

      Dead is dead. Outside of the moment someone dies, the method hardly matters.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    21. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It depends how you define "killer robot" if you are thinking cylons then no but if you are thinking about something like UAVs loaded with weapons and ready for war with operators sitting comfortably miles away from any danger then yes killer robot.

      I'm not saying killer robots don't exist and aren't a concern. Even worse than your scenario, killer drones are on their way to being autonomous -- no operators at all. So yeah, that's a big concern. But until they become Von Neumann machines, they're not in and of themselves a probable direct cause of an extinction event.

      But I'm trying to be fair. Someone please explain to me how killer robots represent a potential extinction event. And not by causing a war. Wars have been caused by more trivial things. "Their king insulted our king" or a single assassination.

      In other words, does the doomsday clock actually represent significant threats to extinction events anymore, or just things that a group of scientists don't like? If the latter, it can safely be ignored.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    22. Re:wait wait wait.... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      And you're pretending that people are basing any sort of philosophy on that? It's still a silly comparison.

    23. Re:wait wait wait.... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I would say the worry is more about how they can be used on each other and the fear that if you are not required to look those people in the eye you may not have remorse or mercy. We will probably not be over run by killer drones autonomous or otherwise but the use of them could precipitate something much worse. ie. The flame that lit the fuse.

    24. Re:wait wait wait.... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Has it ever been anything but political? The whole point was to send a message to the world that hey, Nuclear War is bad, mmkay?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    25. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You discount that, but basing the doomsday clock on the Terminator movies isn't silly?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    26. Re:wait wait wait.... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Opposite-of-what-I-said.txt

    27. Re:wait wait wait.... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Has it ever been anything but political? I'd argue, yes, at one time.

      The point was not to send a message to the world that nuclear war is bad. The clock doesn't convey that at all. That nuclear war is a potential extinction event is assumed. What the clock was supposed to say was how close we were to nuclear war.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    28. Re:wait wait wait.... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the collective foreign policies of Europe, and anyone else that isn't directly sharing a border with Syria could give a fuck

      How much could they give? Or do you mean the opposite of that.

      OH BOY LET'S INVADE! LET'S SANCTION! BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF DAMASCUS!!

      I must have missed where anybody has bombed in Syria, except for the Syrian government. And the only invasion is from Iran and the people they're sponsoring. Is that what you meant?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    29. Re:wait wait wait.... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      Lingering painful death is frowned upon more frownfully than quick death. Even a beheading where the victim likely dies after less than 20 seconds of hacking is frowned upon than the same situation with a pistol shot.
      Killer robots are frowned upon because a remote operator can kill without being endangered, making it clean and easy, instead of the usual mess.
      Method of death does not seem to be a factor.

    30. Re:wait wait wait.... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So this didn't happen? Obama was beating that war drum right until Congress (including the Senate, led by his own party) told him to sit down and shut up. That's when they tried to go the diplomatic route, and then spin history saying that the whole Congressional authorization for military force was just a "bargaining chip" to get Syria to the table, and not another complete disaster when it comes to the relations between Congress and this White House.

      Yeah right. Syria saw a way to get rid of this shit without having to pay to do it, and blame someone else if (when) something goes wrong. And, it was a bargaining chip for Assad to stay in power - he gets to say "Ohh, we're giving up all our bad shit that has left my country in the world's doghouse for decades! Clearly we want to work with the world unlike the jihadist rebel fucks shooting up the place!" Never mind him using his air force to bomb cities and civilians that told him to go eat a bag of shit. And never mind the so-called Free Syrian Army who are blockading cities and not allowing food in because the city is siding with the government.

      Hey, didn't we send a bunch of Marines to Somalia when some fuckface of a warlord and his thugs used hunger as a weapon? I guess black people in Mogadishu count, but arabs in Aleppo don't. Killing with hunger over weeks of time is completely okay, just like using helicopters and tanks on civilians. Just as long as they don't use chemicals that kill in minutes - that provokes international outrage!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    31. Re:wait wait wait.... by lennier · · Score: 1

      unless AI research has gotten a lot darker since I last looked at it?

      Well, Amazon now have drones, and Google just bought a home automation company... and a few months ago Google had their name linked to a Lockheed fusion project...

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    32. Re:wait wait wait.... by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      More Syrians have been killed by traditional weapons than by chemical weapons. But many more people WOULD be killed by chemical weapons than by traditional weapons, if chemical weapons could be used as freely. If we keep their usage completely unacceptable, we will minimize deaths, even if many will still occur by other means. That seems like a reasonable goal, even if its implementation by Western powers was/is pretty incompetent.

    33. Re:wait wait wait.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it have to be autonomous to be a threat? Nukes aren't autonomous either, some human trigger have to be behind it. _Assuming_ we have enough lethal robotic machines to cause widespread destruction, I don't know if we do but maybe the UN does, then all it takes is some mad hacker(s) to initiate some really nasty stuff..

  7. Who cares? by Russ1642 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does anybody really care about this stupid metaphor and the idiots in charge of setting the time? It's so ridiculous that when I saw it in a movie I laughed, and then later found out it was real and laughed much harder.

    1. Re:Who cares? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Yes, some people care, because they lack any other critical tools to understand nuclear geopolitics. A deficit I have to acknowledge a degree of myself(but I'm cognizant of objective measures enough to know that "5 minutes" means absolutely nothing in context).

    2. Re:Who cares? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      It was the nuclear clock. Now it is the doomsday clock with mission creep.

      As usual, they leave out the feature with far and away the greatest effect on quality and length of life: type of government.

      But that gets into politics, and we only accept pre-approved political stances like *reducing* carbon thru forced measures is the solution, or, ummmmmmmm, killer robots.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Who cares? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Forgive my rudeness, but that appears to be a bit of a non-sequitur.

    4. Re:Who cares? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Forgive my rudeness, but that appears to be a bit of a non-sequitur.

      Not to me. The 'Doomsday Clock' was invented as a means to push for nuclear disarmament; arguably a good idea, but unarguably a political agenda.

      Now we've eliminated the majority of nuclear weapons, it's become irrelevant, but, like all such things, they're unable to say 'job done, let's go home', and have to find a new mission. Hence it's now become about pushing 'carbon emission reduction' and eliminating drones.

      Which is why most of us just laugh at it.

    5. Re:Who cares? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Now we've eliminated the majority of nuclear weapons, it's become irrelevant

      Huh? Two countries both have enough nuclear warheads to comfortably annihilate all human life several times over. Six more have enough to put a significant dent in it.

      It doesn't matter if you eliminate the "majority" if what remains is more than enough to get the job done.

      (Not that I think that the clock thing is particularly useful)

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    6. Re:Who cares? by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      This should be an indication of how obsolete this model is.

      Seriously? Who uses clocks anymore with hands? It should have been upgraded to digital a long time ago!

    7. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody really care about this stupid metaphor and the idiots in charge of setting the time? It's so ridiculous that when I saw it in a movie I laughed, and then later found out it was real and laughed much harder.

      Last time I checked (pun intended), the time was always midnight on my VCR... or was that noon? Wait, I still have a VCR?

  8. Safe nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone seen any mentions of safe nuclear power technologies?

    1. Re:Safe nuclear? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Anyone seen any mentions of safe nuclear power technologies?

      No. They have a pretty clear anti-nuclear agenda. The people who matter in the nuclear physics community are not really involved in their opinions they rendered on nuclear power, only on Pakistan, India, and China, which are where it matters in terms of creating new weapons.

    2. Re:Safe nuclear? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Anyone seen any mentions of safe nuclear power technologies?

      You mean like those 'inherently safe' pebble bed reactors?

      I'm sure they're around somewhere. Hey, a flying unipig! Don't see many of those these days.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  9. Nuclear stockpile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "[...] catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new technologies emerging in other domains"

    So if the nuclear stockpile was reduced but the climate change and destruction of environment were still going on, would the
    clock have been moved back then ?

    1. Re:Nuclear stockpile by hermitdev · · Score: 1

      No, because unforeseen new technologies will necessitate moving the clock forward in a vain attempt at remaining relevant.

  10. Inspiration by egcagrac0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The doomsday clock is what inspires people to keep proclaiming this to be the year of Linux on the desktop.

    1. Re:Inspiration by rvw · · Score: 1

      The doomsday clock is what inspires people to keep proclaiming this to be the year of Linux on the desktop.

      As long as the clock runs on Linux... Think of what could happen if this was powered by Windows. Clippy...

  11. Location? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where is this Doomsday clock? It certainly can't be Europe or America, because otherwise it'd be at 5 minutes to 11 due to daylight savings.

    1. Re:Location? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Daylight saving time switches generally happen at 2 am.

    2. Re:Location? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would only be Daylight Savings time in the Southern Hemisphere now. I don't know of any countries there that use such a silly system.

    3. Re:Location? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is this Doomsday clock? It certainly can't be Europe or America, because otherwise it'd be at 5 minutes to 11 due to daylight savings.

      No no, the time changes relative to the observers frame of reference...

    4. Re:Location? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      What I'm wishing is that they'd just set an alarm so I'd know when it gets to 6 AM; this is one long night. I figure they use geolocation so that the time is accurate worldwide; although I'd be interested to see what time it says in Swatch time.

    5. Re:Location? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to say on march 9th when we move all the clocks forward an hour it'll be 50 minutes past the end of the world?

  12. Perhaps it needs to be mover to 1 min. before... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    As clearly this is for those causing it to exist at all.... You know those who like living on the edge...

  13. The Grey by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The real reason the clock remains so close, is the very real possibility of the singularity caused by the Grey Google.

    When the Google consumes every last company on earth, what else can they acquire but your matter?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The Grey by Prune · · Score: 1

      > Grey Google

      Took me a moment to see your link it to the nanotech "grey goo" disaster scenario. Given Google's ventures in various new areas, such as their recent involvement in robotics, I wouldn't be surprised if that comes from there too, eventually.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  14. killer robot = drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sending off drones or other machines/vehicles with weapons into foreign nations, without declaring war, and covertly, seems pretty dangerous to me. Seems like very fertile grounds for an international crisis. Lots of groups will like the idea, not all of them nations.

    1. Re:killer robot = drone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sending off drones or other machines/vehicles with weapons into foreign nations, without declaring war, and covertly, seems pretty dangerous to me. Seems like very fertile grounds for an international crisis. Lots of groups will like the idea, not all of them nations.

      I am not sure how "pretty dangerous" drones could lead to a worldwide catastrophe, which is what the Doomsday Clock is supposed to indicate.

    2. Re:killer robot = drone by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I mean, the inexplicable lack of left turn signals at busy intersections in Phoenix, AZ seems pretty dangerous to me. Shall we set the doomsday clock to 4 minutes to midnight?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:killer robot = drone by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Unmanned drones means commanders would be more likely to commit them to action since they aren't human bodies. If this happens with regularity then the chances of a conflict escalating increase. If the doomsday clock measures the probability of global thermonuclear war wiping out humanity that's certainly an escalation of conflict. Drones, at least marginally, contribute to it. I guess you could use a similar justification for climate change. Changing climate makes resources more scarce and major conflict more likely.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  15. Re:clarification for those confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what the fuck are you going on about.

    get back on your meds

  16. Wait, what? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 0

    Since when did the doomsday clock include climate change? Since Al Gore became master of earth?

    Call me crazy or old but I thought it was about nuclear holocaust.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Since when did the doomsday clock include climate change? Since Al Gore became master of earth?

      I'm pretty sure ol' Al had to give that title up when he became Emperor of the Moon.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The doomsday clock has been a propaganda device by leftist alarmists since it's inception. Even if world peace breaks out and everyone is singing Kumbaya, they will advance the clock to two minutes before midnite, because we no longer have war to control the human overpopulation in developing countries.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 2

      Al Gore

      DRINK!

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    4. Re:Wait, what? by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      Since when did the doomsday clock include climate change? Since Al Gore became master of earth?

      Call me crazy or old but I thought it was about nuclear holocaust.

      This.

      I was around back in the "duck and cover" days, and the doomsday clock might've meant something back then. Now? Not so much.

      I think the fact that they've added climate change and "threat from inability to manage emerging technologies" (whatever the fsck that's supposed to mean) to their time setting rationale just goes to show how desperate they are to remain relevant.

  17. To quote 4chan /b/ on things like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  18. What clock does this run on? by zoffdino · · Score: 1

    The US and Russia have had nukes for 70 years now. I don't know the exact numbers but IIRC a Tom Clancy's novel says Russia / Soviet Union has 27,000 nukes alone. India and China have possessed them for the better part of the last half-century. North Korea can always go nut, but their nuke is more is a gerrymandering device than a serious global threat. They may hit Seoul... if they aim at Tokyo.

    Climate change take years to become a major problem for homo sapiens. The dinosaurs took 100,000 years to go extinct from the impacts of the K-T event. And that's considered a very rapid extinction.

    If the 24-hour clock is the age of the Earth, human only existed in the last minute. 5 minutes to catastrophe is plenty of time.

    1. Re:What clock does this run on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the 24-hour clock is the age of the Earth, then that's a pretty fucking stupid choice of units.

  19. A stopped clock ... by jamesl · · Score: 1

    A stopped clock is right twice a day. The doomsday clock, it turns out, has never been right.

    But maybe this time is different.

  20. What better way to desensitise people to threats by trawg · · Score: 1

    ... than to constantly use fear of imminent danger to try to scare them into action, and then have nothing happen.

    It's classic 'boy who cried wolf'. I don't know what the right way is, but I can't see any evidence that the Doomsday Clock is having any effect (...is there any?)

  21. With "climate change" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised they aren't claiming it's 1 minute 'til.

    1. Re:With "climate change" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hands of the doomsday clock are carefully placed placed just before the moment that would cause the general populace to call them on their bullshit.

  22. Obligatory Iron Maiden by istartedi · · Score: 1

    The clock inspired an Iron Maiden classic 80s nuke rock piece. When MTV played videos, nuclear war and/or post nuclear settings were a recurring theme since the cold war was still on and intensified during the Reagan administration. I should make a list of these videos if somebody hasn't already.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  23. Killer robots ? by vikingpower · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    Technological changes are outpacing humanity’s ability to manage them in ways that ensure our safety and security.

    Combine that with automated killing of automatons. I challenge you not to shiver.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  24. Re:What better way to desensitise people to threat by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Never attribute to conspiracy what can be adequately explained by a bunch of hippies desperate for attention.

  25. Re:Iran, NK by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. This has been verified repeatedly by the IAEA. The only people who say otherwise are the Israeli government, because they would really really like the United States to attack Iran. That's why their lobbyists have been working really hard to undo the deal that the Obama administration cut with the Iranians and the rest of the UN Security Council to make sure that the Iranians never get a nuke.

    North Korea has had nukes for about a decade now. The serious threat has never been North Korea nuking the US, it's been North Korea nuking South Korea or Japan. They could already do that if they wanted to, and haven't, because they and their Chinese backers aren't really that crazy or stupid. Kim Jong Un has to make a lot of noise like he's going to launch a serious attack in order to gain credibility with the hardliners at home who would probably have him killed if he didn't look like he was one of them. The NK nukes are pretty much there as a doomsday device to make sure the US and its allies doesn't attack them again, and they're doing exactly that.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  26. M.A.D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why aren't we a little bit safer? The doomsday clock was primarily about WW3 and the huge overkill of nukes that the US and the USSR had literally pointing at each other. Sure we still have some, but the stockpiles are significantly smaller. Communism fell in Russia, and they are sorta kinda our friends.
    How are we going to kill ourselves? WW3 would have done it in a matter of hours.
    Global warming? I doubt thats gonna be doomsday for us.
    North Korea? If they ever tried to fire anything, it would be blown out of the sky.. (by our killer robots)
    Killer robots are just dumb and nobel laureates should be ashamed for putting that in.

    1. Re:M.A.D. by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      You are really ruining the party dude.

  27. 5 minutes is not too bad by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

    5 minutes to midnight lasted for hours on Polar Express, so I'm not too worried.

  28. Re:clarification for those confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heathen! The doomsday clock and the government knows better than you. Now go back to your straw hut and eat your ration of tofu, citizen!

  29. Breaking news by UnphaZeD · · Score: 0

    From the airport: Terror level is "Orange". I have a hard time believing that people get paid to come up with this stuff.

  30. Paradox by trongey · · Score: 1

    Does anybody else think it's funny that we're reading an article about an anachronistic clock?

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  31. Never been more than 17 min away? by BringsApples · · Score: 3, Informative

    From wikipedia:
    Reflecting international events dangerous to humankind, the Clock's hands have been adjusted twenty times since its inception in 1947, when the Clock was initially set to seven minutes to midnight.

    They give a good graph here.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Never been more than 17 min away? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      There is no way we are closer to nuclear annihilation today that we were in 1960. This shows that just like there are corporate interests on the bad side spreading disinformation, there are also alarmists and chicken littles on the good side trying to maintain relevance even after the problem they were tasked to address (nuclear annihilation) has ceased to exist.

    2. Re:Never been more than 17 min away? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be nuclear annihilation - we're closer to "doomsday" is what they're saying.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Never been more than 17 min away? by Alomex · · Score: 1

      We are no closer to doomsday now than we were then either. As I said, the sane thing to do would have been to retire the clock, but people who have committed their life to a single task have a hard time letting it go.

    4. Re:Never been more than 17 min away? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      but people who have committed their life to a single task have a hard time letting it go.

      I know exactly what you mean. At my house I have a clock that shows how close I am to having sex with Natalie Portman. It's been at 1 minute till midnight, since 1999.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  32. any minute now is pretty accurate by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    we do lack an objective instrument for how screwed we are as a species, but "any minute now" is just a terribly uninformative model.

    Relative to the timescale of the human species, I'd say "any minute now" is pretty accurate. We've been around for over 200,000 years - but in the space of about one hundred years, we've irreversibly altered the planet and created the tools with which to destroy it completely, and I'm not just talking about the nukes.

    I'd give us about 100 years tops before we're at post-apocalyptic climate/civilization status.

    Also, given that both the USSR/Russia and the US have had numerous accidents and close-calls involving nuclear weapons and those weapons are aging and not really going away...yeah, I'd say it's pretty accurate. I've always been amazed that we haven't blown up anything "by accident" yet.

    1. Re:any minute now is pretty accurate by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3

      So, if we're doomed in 5 minutes, what does 24 hours represent? What's the scaling factor? To me, it reads as false objectivity.

    2. Re:any minute now is pretty accurate by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      So, if we're doomed in 5 minutes, what does 24 hours represent? What's the scaling factor? To me, it reads as false objectivity.

      One minute past midnight means we're all living in a lovely Communist utopia where everyone is happy and fluffy and nothing bad ever happens, Comrade.

    3. Re:any minute now is pretty accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One minute past midnight means we're all living in a lovely Communist utopia where everyone is happy and fluffy and nothing bad ever happens, Comrade.

      Nonsense. One minute past midnight is when John Galt and his fellow libertarian Ubermensch return to rebuild civilization after all the communists and rent seekers destroyed us all (or do you honestly think the Almighty free market capitalism would have allowed the world to end due to unintended "externalities" that the pinkos accuse it to ignore?)

    4. Re:any minute now is pretty accurate by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      So, if we're doomed in 5 minutes, what does 24 hours represent?

      One ampere, perhaps?

      A new standard for the kilogram?

      It could be anything. Seriously -- it makes about as much sense. If "probability of disaster" is somehow equated to a time duration, frankly I think we could say it's equal to just about anything.

    5. Re:any minute now is pretty accurate by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      He wasn't trying to start an argument, just make a joke. Turning that joke around to target another group is kinda like going "well... your mom is also fat and stupid, so there!"

    6. Re:any minute now is pretty accurate by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Arbitrary doesn't mean "without scale", which was the concern I was expressing. The difference between 2 kilos and 3 kilos is the same as the difference between 3 and 4. Whereas the difference between "5 minutes to midnight" and "6 minutes to midnight" are "we say so"

    7. Re:any minute now is pretty accurate by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      My wife sometimes forgets who she's talking about and makes 'your mom' jokes about our kids. Then stammers for a bit when she realizes that would be her. Seriously.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  33. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While it is true that the existence of any nuclear weapons *at all* brings us a lot closer to midnight than we otherwise would be....the existence of "a lot more than we would like" does not and should not bring us any closer to midnight.

    Once we have enough nuclear weapons on hand to destroy the world, the only indicator of risk is the likelihood of us using them. Having the ability to destroy the world twice over doesn't make us any more likely to destroy the world than if we could only destroy it once over.

    Further, anyone who believes that a nuclear-capable country will voluntarily give up *all* its nuclear weapons is simply being naive.

    So, disarmament gestures are just that...gestures....they don't actually increase our safety at all.

    1. Re:Yes. by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't 'have enough nuclear weapons on hand to destroy the world'. That would take a fsckload more than we had even at the peak of the Cold War. That's why the anti-nukes had to invent 'nuclear winter' to make nukes seem scarier.

      A nuclear war with the current stockpiles would be a really bad day, but nothing even approaching 'destroying the world'.

    2. Re:Yes. by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      invent 'nuclear winter'

      Awesome!! Totally forgot about that side affect. Humans can push this clock way back with one of those. Less population, less green house gases (fewer people, means fewer cars/heating/burning/etc..), and a cooler planet should Global Warming take off. Man, this could solve so many problems.

      I'm trying to see a down side here.....oh yeah, distruction, loss of life, and reverting much of the world back to the 1800's. Dang. I thought we had a Global solution there.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    3. Re:Yes. by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      You don't 'have enough nuclear weapons on hand to destroy the world'. That would take a fsckload more than we had even at the peak of the Cold War. That's why the anti-nukes had to invent 'nuclear winter' to make nukes seem scarier.

      A nuclear war with the current stockpiles would be a really bad day, but nothing even approaching 'destroying the world'.

      When people talk about enough nukes to destroy the world, they generally mean enough nukes to destroy everything on this rock. The planet will continue to exist, but nothing (or next to nothing) will survive.

    4. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nuclear war with the current stockpiles would be a really bad day, but nothing even approaching 'destroying the world'.

      Pedant much? A nuclear war with today's stockpiles (much less Cold War stockpiles) would quite likely mean the end of the human race. IOW, the end of the world. Nuclear winter is a red herring

    5. Re:Yes. by Shalhav · · Score: 1

      A nuclear war with today's stockpiles (much less Cold War stockpiles) would quite likely mean the end of the human race. IOW, the end of the world. Nuclear winter is a red herring

      While it would cause more destruction than anyone wants, this is a pretty big earth. I allow you the benefit of a doubt, though. Do you have a credible source for your claims about ending the human race?

    6. Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? What if we dropped a couple down into Yellowstone?

  34. The *real* problem--doomsday sex by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 2

    .. because 5 minutes is not long enough at all to hook up with the hottie down the hall and be all "GAAAA!!! We're all going to die!!! Quick! .. now! In the supply closet!!" So we really need at least 20 minutes on the clock at a minimum. I'm going to write my congressman.

  35. Obligatory Watchmen quote by jayveekay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Janet Black: Doctor Manhattan as you know the Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clock face analogizing humankind's proximity to extinction, midnight representing the threat of nuclear war. As of now it stands at four minutes to midnight. Would you agree that we are that close to annihilation?

    Jon Osterman: My father was a watch maker. He abandoned it when Einstein discovered time is relative. I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.

    1. Re:Obligatory Watchmen quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto.

  36. Re:North Korea ohreally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China doesn't bat an eyelash at the idea of 25 million starving people - in the 80's that was normal in China. North Korea is basically a puppet and useful if China needs an excuse to attack someone else by provoking a fight they can enter (and have some nominal reason for invading said 3rd country)

  37. Re:Iran, NK by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

    The NK nukes are pretty much there as a doomsday device to make sure the US and its allies doesn't attack them again, and they're doing exactly that.

    Agree with you on everything but the "again." North Korea invaded the South, not the other way around. Minor quibble, though.

  38. Re:North Korea ohreally? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

    Yeah....you have no clue.

  39. Re:What better way to desensitise people to threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... than to constantly use fear of imminent danger to try to scare them into action, and then have nothing happen.

    It's classic 'boy who cried wolf'. I don't know what the right way is, but I can't see any evidence that the Doomsday Clock is having any effect (...is there any?)

    You don't see any evidence? Are you somehow magically immune to taxes and travel policies?

    Might I direct your attention to the trillion-dollar DHS organization that continues to justify itself through FUD.

    Ironically, death by 1,000 cuts is the government mantra. The fact that you didn't see these cuts goes to show you just how good they are at it.

    This device continues to serve it's purpose. To justify pointless budgets in the war on "terror", which includes the age-old threats and the new ones.

  40. Re:North Korea ohreally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me and the CIA

  41. Close to doom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, because clearly we are closer to doom than in 1968, when the clock was at 7 minutes, and the world was involved in numerous proxy wars including the 6 day war, the Vietnam War, and the Indo-Pakistani War while two more nations, France and China, acquire nuclear weapons. We are definitely closer to imminent destruction today than we were in 1968.

  42. Ed Grimley by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    We are doomed, I say, doomed as doomed can be! (y' know)

  43. Meh, we have Dr. Manhattan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will save us from nukes.

  44. Same as it ever was by wcrowe · · Score: 2

    People have felt like the proverbial doomsday clock is at five minutes before midnight for most of recorded history. I bet, someday, they'll discover a "doomsday" gene that causes our species to always feel this way. Probably a holdover from our primordial ancestors who were always five minutes away from being some other animal's next meal. Except now we have big brains and can speculate and imagine the future, and the future always looks bleak to us -- possibly because we know we will not be a part of it.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  45. The Doomsday clock is a real thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they made the doomsday clock up for Watchmen.

    It doesn't surprise me much that it existed during the Cold War, but that there's an organization that maintains it to this day is a pretty sad commentary on modern bureaucracy.

    1. Re:The Doomsday clock is a real thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it's a real thing. It's a bunch of scientists who think, by virtue of being scientists, that they are wiser than everyone else and can therefore tell everyone about the state of the world and the ramifications of their decisions. This is often a common trend I see with many scientists; the hubris of realizing how smart they are in their field leads them to believe that their intelligence is universal and also applies to Wisdom, when in my experience WIS and INT are entirely different statistics.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_clock

  46. Is this clock taken seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killer robots? Is this a movie?
    Climate change? Climate always changes up and down, it has not ended earth in the last million years.
    Nukes? Hardly matters how many there are, its whether a country is going to use them that should matter.

    Just a way for governments to bring fear to people so they can pass laws that people normally do not want.

  47. FUD by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    A little edit due to a typo in the summary: "The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to fearmongering, and our desperate need for people to tell us how we're 'utterly certainly doomed...any minute now' by anyone wanting our attention."

    --
    -Styopa
  48. Sword of Damocles? Ready, FIRE! by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

    What?? Only 5 minutes to midnight?

    Damnit, I've been scared way back when from a teenager from the cold war and MAD and all. And now it's terrorists and the economy and the government and global warming and nanobots and job migration and what-all?

    You've got to be kidding me. No, that's not right -- you ARE kidding me. Crank that thing up to exactly midnight already and let's get this global party started! Otherwise SHUT THE HELL UP -- things aren't always as bad as they seem. (...or as good as they seem, either.)

    By the way, you forgot about the upcoming water shortage and superbug antibiotics problems. Oh, supervolcanos, black-holes and upcoming entropy problems too!

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  49. Re:Iran, NK by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    The "again" part was that once the US/UN forces had pushed the North out of the South, they kept right on going until the North was crammed up against the Chinese border. There was of course a counteroffensive which sent the border close to where it had started.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  50. Re:Iran, NK by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

    Fair enough.

  51. Re: Sword of Damocles? Ready, FIRE! by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

    or super-sharkanos.

  52. That is why 5 minutes by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    "While it is true that the existence of any nuclear weapons *at all* brings us a lot closer to midnight than we otherwise would be....the existence of "a lot more than we would like" does not and should not bring us any closer to midnight."

    That they exists keeps the clock between 5 and 10 minutes to midnight. how many is the variable of a minute or two.

    not to defend the practice as a whole, just comparing 60 minute's variable to a 5 minute variable. A minute change is a minute. (pun intended)

  53. With the NK record so far... by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    The missile, if ever built and launched at SK, will hit China. Then the problem will immediately and with extreme prejudice solve itself.

  54. They have more info by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Their feed from SkyNet is very informative.

  55. Abololish the UN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their treaties supersede US constitutional law.

  56. 5 minutes to midnight? by drainbramage · · Score: 2

    Is that Eastern time or Zulu?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  57. Re:North Korea ohreally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    80's China is very different from 2014 China.

  58. Anyone here old enough by Chompjil · · Score: 1

    To remember when it was at 2 minutes during the Cuban Missle Crisis I think?

    --
    People once told me 68K ram was all we needed,
  59. Bad clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That thing has never kept good time. Someone needs to change the batteries.

  60. What's the point? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the color coding terror system. It's never going to be green. Think about it. What's the ideal time anyway on this clock? 6:05p ?

  61. Nothing but money making FUD! by taxtropel · · Score: 1

    OMG have you people seen their website! It's all "subscribe now" "donate now" "we bring fear, give us your money!" ridiculous

  62. It's a joke now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 'global warming' is calculated into a doomsday prediction, you already know it's fake.

  63. Should put it at TWO minutes to midnight by Avalanche_Joe · · Score: 1

    Then we can all sing "Two minutes to miiiidnight, the hands that threaten doooom..." \m/