Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doomsday Clock Could Move

Posted by samzenpus on from the closer-to-midnight dept.

Lasrick writes The ominous minute hand of the 'Doomsday Clock' has been fixed at 5 minutes to midnight for the past three years. But it could move tomorrow. The clock is a visual metaphor that was created nearly 70 years ago by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, whose Board of Governors boasts 18 Nobel laureates. Each year, the Bulletin's Science and Security Board assesses threats to humanity — with special attention to nuclear warheads and climate change — to decide whether the Doomsday Clock needs an adjustment. The event will be streamed live from the Bulletin's website at 11 am EST.

145 comments

  1. I hope they move it by khallow · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who really wants to end the world in Chicago?

    1. Re:I hope they move it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tune in tomorrow to find out! ... Wasn't it Walter Cronkite that refused to give news of what might happen in the future?

      Not saying that Slashdot would ever live up to Cronkite's standards....

    2. Re:I hope they move it by shrewdsheep · · Score: 0

      Hm... can this clock be moved at all? You will always move by a fraction of the remaining time, which, you know, proves that doomsday does not exist.

    3. Re:I hope they move it by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Hm... can this clock be moved at all? You will always move by a fraction of the remaining time, which, you know, proves that doomsday does not exist.

      Zeno's Paradox doesn't apply. If the fraction of the remaining time is 100%, doomsday has arrived - and you've got bigger problems than where the hands of the clock point to.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:I hope they move it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will always move by a fraction of the remaining time, which, you know, proves that doomsday does not exist.

      Please explain, because I don't know how that could possibly prove anything.

    5. Re:I hope they move it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're used to it. Chicago has been living its own doomsday scenario for a long time thanks to corrupt politicians, prosecutors and cops, and others in power; even our treasured athletes have gotten in on the game. It's only a matter of time before the whole town implodes.

    6. Re:I hope they move it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who really gives a shit about some metaphorical doomsday clock?

    7. Re:I hope they move it by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      The world's first nuclear reactor was created in Chicago, under the bleachers of the stadium at UC. It was thought at the time that the world could actually end as a result.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    8. Re: I hope they move it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a classic paradox.

      Let's say you want to take 1 step forward. Well naturally to get to a full step have to take half a step, but to get to half you have to go a quarter, and before a quarter one must go an eighth and do so on and so forth.

    9. Re:I hope they move it by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      Who really gives a shit about some metaphorical doomsday clock?

      I do and so should you. I've been following the Doomsday clock from my teenage years, when it advanced from 7, 4, 3 minutes to midnight at the culmination of the cold War. The existential threat posed by the clock was real and terrifying. At that time scientists were debating a worst-case scenario of Nuclear Winter.

      I've been on board with these folks for many years and as such hold them to high standards. One such standard is that of defining each existential threat as complete as possible, and the other is to identify clearly which threats contribute the most risk for the forward clock adjustment. This is done by rank.

      Their standard has slipped.

      In their statement the issues were presented as follows:
      Climate change, leading off with the 2014 Hottest Year statistical flapdoodle, declaring it an issue that "world leaders must face head on, immediately."
      And if they have some spare time left over,
      Nuclear modernization programs threaten to create a new arms race.
      The leadership failure on nuclear power. Hear, hear!
      Dealing with emerging technological threats. Ebola (technological? huh?), cyberattacks, AI killer drones, "dual-use technologies" (box cutters?), the kitchen sink.

      The Bulletin's ranking is important. If you applaud this headlining of climate change just because you personally feel strongly about it...

      Then perhaps you should catch up on the current nuclear weapons counts and capabilities. If a conflict anywhere in the world goes nuclear, do you feel assured that the current leadership of your own country or the closest nuclear power is capable of restraining itself to the use of none --- or at most tactical weapons? If you're one of those folks who like to shout "nuke 'em!", bear in mind that some countries that the United States plays cheeky hardball with, such as Iran, contain resources that China considers to be vital to its National Security. Also since the former Soviet Republic dissolved, Russia and China are becoming more geopolitically allied with one another. Over time perhaps, an alliance will form that is stronger than either one has with the United States. It would be awful indeed to realize this as missiles are crossing in the air.

      Perhaps you should evaluate the recent response to Ebola's emergence beyond its historical areas, and ask yourself how prepared even the most developed countries are on this day --- and what could have happened had the outbreak been even slightly less contained. This is ranked towards the end??

      Of course, none of these threats, save perhaps a more virulent successor to Ebola with a 100% rate of death or reproductive damage (greetz to Vonnegut) might truly be considered existential. Life would go on and human life especially. Technically we are beyond survival. Even the most ludicrous global warming effects imagined do not convincingly paint a picture of 'mass extinction'; rather, a re-ordering of species numbers, purpose and precedence as nature has done for time uncounted.

      But or modern way of life as we know it --- that is truly what is at stake. And it is worth preserving because as a species we are still learning to do better. While there are hot nuclear pickles ready to deploy we cannot be free and clear of the nuclear adolescence posed by Carl Sagan. With Ebola still in the wild without a clear vaccine or some way to deactivate it in its quiescent animal hosts, we cannot be said to have survived that either. And sad to say, a civilization reliant on base load wind and solar is not modern either, especially after a single continent-wide freeze. It's a pa

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    10. Re: I hope they move it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also blacks.

    11. Re:I hope they move it by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      You will always move by a fraction of the remaining time, which, you know, proves that doomsday does not exist.

      Please explain, because I don't know how that could possibly prove anything.

      /. was a smart place once. You are what happened.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  2. A word to the wise by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If you tune into the stream, and the background music turns out to be Barry McGuire's Eve of Destruction... head straight to your fallout shelters forthwith.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:A word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah- they will use Iron Maiden: Two minutes to Midnight.

      The hands that threaten doo-oooo-oooo-ooo-ooom

    2. Re:A word to the wise by Rei · · Score: 1

      I more prefer my apocalypse-themed music to be romantic and slightly nerdy ;)

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    3. Re:A word to the wise by meglon · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I have to admit, Eve of Destruction is more from my age groups music, but i've loved the REM song since Independence Day.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    4. Re:A word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that the Doomsday tune is "Komm Susser Tod (Komm, süßer Tod)".

    5. Re:A word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's test this: süßer doçura incólume ade

      Are accents now available here?

    6. Re:A word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Some accents, yes... others... não.

      - ade above is jaude (plus accents)... Esperanto for Thursdays...

    7. Re:A word to the wise by imatter · · Score: 1

      Considering that the song is about the Doomsday Clock, it is really the only song that can be played. Unless someone knows another song influenced by the Doomsday Clock.

    8. Re:A word to the wise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the one then goes THRUM DUM DIDDLE DUM for a bit, and then goes widdlywiddlywiddly and then goes THRUM DUM DIDDLE DUM a bit more?

  3. Obviously... by Guy+From+V · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Scientists are finally of a consensus that yes, indeed, it is time to rock.

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

      Scientists are finally of a consensus that yes, indeed, it is time to rock.

      I'll wait without much concern, until the clock is "Two Minutes to Midnight" ;)

    2. Re:Obviously... by kazekirifx · · Score: 1

      "The hands that threaten doom."

  4. Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Trachman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One could understand and expect that intellectually stimulating discussions among 18 Noble prize laureates will yield to unspecified doomsday due to the climate change. Or, in reality, this became a free networking event with good food and interesting contacts, all under the guise of saving the humanity.

    Meanwhile, this year alone in violent death there were approx 2 thousands of casualties in Nigeria, approx 1 thousand of casualties in Ukraine and Iraq. There are real wars that are being waged at this time.

    In United States from cancer and cardiovascular diseases almost 4 thousands of Americans are dying every day. Not that the death is avoidable, but proper nutrition, exercise and lifestyle can prolong life by a decade for many.

    So what exactly is the purpose of ever-frozen clock showing the risk of super-fast destruction combined with super-slow climate change risk for some reason commingled and culminating to decision to keep 5 minutes to the noon.. So why exactly 18 Nobel prize laureates are gathering to decide if it is 6 minutes or 4 minutes to the end of the world.

    How about using talents and energies on real problems, identified using old fashioned scientific method called prioritization, in IT world knowing as function "sort".

    1. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by abies · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regarding violent death - we are in a lot better shape than in previous years. Amount of people dying in wars and conflicts is getting smaller and smaller. It is just that our information coverage of that is getting better and better.

      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

      These days, environmental issues (be it global warming, overfishing, pollution, sweet water depletion, pick your one) seem to be a lot more dangerous to our civilization than wars. 50 years ago, there was a chance that huge mutual nuclear war will wipe humanity off the planet. This was what doomdays clock is about. Doomsday clock doesn't care if you have local war with million casualties. Million deaths yearly due to wars or eating McDonald food is not going to make any difference to humanity as whole. Making Earth Venus-like does, even if it happens in 400 years, but cannot be prevented.

    2. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      How about using talents and energies on real problems, identified using old fashioned scientific method called prioritization, in IT world knowing as function "sort".

      Solving problems like war and climate change pretty much requires getting into politics. If you were a nobel laureate would you want to spend your time dealing with the idiots people vote for?

    3. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > old fashioned scientific method called prioritization, in IT world knowing as function "sort".

      Sorting is easy.

      Defining the sorting criteria value for each item (priority) isn't.
      In fact, sorting is a completely defined and verifiable operation, whereas defining a priority is completely subjective (see Tragedy of the Commons).

      So yeah, that's a bad analogy :)
      Captcha : pauper

    4. Re: Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You read my mind, and put it far better than I could.

    5. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

      If Earth becomes Venus-like then those with innovation and drive will innovate a way to protect themselves, while those that don't will eventally adapt, growing a hard, rocky skin and blood based on liquid metals rather than water. The climate has changed in Earth's past and life survived; if our future is to be a tribe of hideous rock monsters ruled by clever, pitiless human overlords in protective bubbles, then bring it on. It's not a reason to hinder economic growth.

      --
      Vote freedom. Vote prosperity. Vote Reanimated Corpse Of Ayn Rand in 2016.

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    6. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your numbers are scary? No.

      Multiply your numbers by 10 or 100 or 1000. Scary, eh? Not that much.

      Multiply them by a million. Now they're scary.

      War has ALWAYS gone on. Never have we had wars with SO FEW casualties. Certainly never have we had wars with SUCH a small percentage of the population as casualties. Historically, wars have been known to obliterate 50% of the population of a country quite easily. Same for plagues, etc.

      To say that a few thousand casualties is world-changing is - as sad as this is - wrong. It's not. On the grand scheme of things the world will not notice. And why? Because that scale of carnage happens EVERY DAY and is actually much better now than it ever was in modern history.

      We now have wars where we have so few casualties on one side that we can NAME the individual soldiers. We can have a press article for each one that dies. That's really nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

      Doomsday is about the end of the world. 7 billion lives or a significant fraction of that. Your numbers are in the 0.000001 range of that (I may have missed an extra zero) even if you add the "every day" that you did to cancer etc.).

      Fact is, we've never lived so long, been so healthy, or had such few casualties of war. However, one bomb in the right place, one North Korean dictator who goes a little loopy and makes a mad order to his military, one cyber-attack too many, and you can easily be looking at a real, live, global war that humanity won't recover. Climate change is not about the granny that died in the hot summer last year, it's about literally MILLIONS of people being displaced or forced into starvation as the lands become hostile to agriculture.

      In comparison, your numbers are bloody chicken-feed. And 18 Nobel Prize laureates recognise that and are looking at the bigger picture that everyone forgets.

      Now, I'm not a massive climate-change-will-kill-the-planet believer, but even I recognise that we're talking entire orders of magnitude bigger problems than bombing some shacks in the Middle East back to dust, or even taking down a couple of skyscrapers. For every single person in 9/11 that died, think SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS or even SEVERAL MILLION dying instead in the scenarios the doomsday clock is supposed to reflect.

      This is the real problem. While you're sitting there worried about heart disease from your rich lifestyle, and cancer from living so damn long compared to even your parents/grandparents, these guys are looking at the numbers.

      You are more likely to die in an asteroid collision than just about any other problem, statistically. It's scientific fact. What have we done about it? Bugger all. And everyone just says "Oh, but that'll never happen". It doesn't matter. If it does, it wipes out humanity. If climate change is as serious as some serious scientists claim, it wipes out humanity. If nuclear war ever starts again - EVER - and there's a single retaliation (in all nuclear devices ever deployed, there is no recorded nuclear retaliation in history), then it wipes out humanity.

      By comparison, less people dying every day from war than they do from walking out into the road at the wrong moment is piddling about.

      The talents and energies are ON the real problems, the ones that will matter, will be irreversible, will change life as you know it forever (modern war, thus far, has not changed life as you know it at all, really - except to give you technology to make it easier to sit at home and get heart trouble!) and that are being largely ignored and require a gimmick to get you to wake up, stop watching Fox News, and deal with a real issue facing humanity for once.

    7. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by abies · · Score: 1

      Life survived. Some of it. I have no doubt that SOME life will survive on Earth, it might be just not primates, including us.
      As for innovation - yes, if change is rapid enough and we got enough 'transhumanist' movement it is possible. But way it looks like now, resources and innovation will be rather put into feeding as many people as possible, while desperately trying to preserve status quo. Add few uprisings due to failing social security, fanatical religion takeovers here and there (not neccesarily muslim, other ones are also dangerous if things will start to look dim) and there will be no enough drive/resources/skill to really innovate on needed solutions.

      There seem to be two prevailing concepts how to progress further:
      a) ignore environment and try to use as much resources as possible, get to 10 billion people and waste everything around to provide luxury for 5% and survivable poverty to 95% rest till we run out of everything
      b) focus on environment, try to reduce resource usage as possible, get to 15 billion people and waste everything around slowly to provide passable live for 10% and survivable poverty to rest 90% till we run out of everything in bit longer time

      I think that both of these solutions will ultimately lead to collapse of civilization, without any chance of recovering in future (due to lack of easily accessible, low-tech, high-energy fuels to boostrap technology again)
      I think that we should rather aim more to
      c) reduce population to 1-2 billion, focus on high energy solutions like fission 4/5th gen, fusion etc, while keeping environment in line due to reduced population usage, try to provide luxury to 50% and passable live to other 50% and focus on advanced, distruptive research - hard AI, body replacement, mind uploads etc.

      Then, in few hundred years we can really laugh in face of climate disasters, big asteroids and other extinction levels; but this is pure s-f unfortunately, because it goes against all current tenets of society (social security based on piramid generation scheme, religion as driving force for majority of population, elections/government responsible for keeping people content till next election, majority of clueless people driven by fears and fuds about things like GMO and vaccination not going to ever accept more radical solutions to bio engineering). Plus, there is no guarantee that any of these things is really possible/sustainable due to physic limitations. And if it is not, we will die out anyway, just bit later than scenario b.

    8. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Ingcuervo · · Score: 1
      I think you are a little in the HORROR side of the things, only by looking at:

      ... For every single person in 9/11 that died, think SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS or even SEVERAL MILLION dying instead in the scenarios the doomsday clock is supposed to reflect....

      so, statistics say that 9/11 had about 3000 deaths (From wikipedia), now, lets assume you are correct saying that at least 1 MILLION dies for each one who died on 9/11(assuming you mean that 1 counts as SEVERAL), so basically you are saying that "3000*1'000.000=around half world population" die in these scenarios? i dont think the scenarios are causing only couple of deaths, but we should not get to the other extreme neither

    9. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are more likely to die in an asteroid collision than just about any other problem, statistically. It's scientific fact.

      I was with you until there. Sorry, I'm most likely to die from heart disease.

      Not to say that the other points you make aren't good. Just you overstepped a bit towards the end of your rant.

    10. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I'm most likely to die from heart disease.

      Indeed, your argument would be stronger with the proper citation: World Health Organization: The top 10 causes of death

    11. Re: Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were doing well until you just to bring up Fox News. You either need to blame all news services or none at all. They are all bias in one way or another. Wake up!

    12. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fact: 95% of the world do not live as much in peace, free, healthy and "so long" as you do.

    13. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number 1 on that list? Asteroid collision! It's a scientifical fact. Check and mate!

    14. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by spectrokid · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm not a massive climate-change-will-kill-the-planet believer

      That is what everybody gets wrong. Climate change will not kill the planet, not even the eco system. It might however very well kill us. (Or most of us)

      --

      10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    15. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multiply your numbers by 10 or 100 or 1000. Scary, eh? Not that much.

      Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but multiplying his numbers by 1,000 would be a very substantial war. Multiplying them by 10,000 would be significantly larger than World War 2, his numbers were per year. I realize that you're exaggerating to make a point, but still. A war like that is certainly something to be afraid of.

    16. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Bongo · · Score: 2

      So why exactly 18 Nobel prize laureates are gathering to decide if it is 6 minutes or 4 minutes to the end of the world.

      If they can get it down to 3 minutes, everyone takes off their clothes and has sex.

    17. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      There seem to be two prevailing concepts how to progress further:

      ...followed by population numbers...

      Note that the best guesses by the experts say that we MIGHT hit 10 billion before world population declines to lower levels than now. Maybe. We won't hit 15 billion without some dramatic change, like suddenly all the birth-control methods in current use stop working.

      Do note that more than half the world is reproducing at lower than replacement rates, including USA, EU, China. Immigration is the only thing propping up US/EU population growth to current levels....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by pamar · · Score: 1

      War has ALWAYS gone on. Never have we had wars with SO FEW casualties. Certainly never have we had wars with SUCH a small percentage of the population as casualties. Historically, wars have been known to obliterate 50% of the population of a country quite easily. Same for plagues, etc.

      Is it really so? (I am asking out of genuine curiosity, or at most trying to challenge this specific point):

      From what I understand war in ancient time were fought mostly between opposite armies meeting on a more or less "agreed-upon" battlefield.
      This was more or less true for any kind of organized conflict up to WWI, and only with WWII (and the widespread use of planes as offensive weapons - so more precisely we should probably start counting from Spanish Civil War at the end of the 30s) warfare started targeting civilian (i.e. industries and cities) objectives.
      Cities were "targeted" in the past too (sieges) and I don't mean that civilians weren't suffering for wars (aftermath of large battles would often result in pillaging, rape, slavery) but I really believe that civilians are more directly involved in warfare starting from the beginning of XX century.

    19. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by ledow · · Score: 1

      "Cause of death" = recorded causes of death in modern history.

      "Most likely to die" = includes UNRECORDED causes of death, e.g. fecking asteroid strikes that will take out the entire population of earth and, when we look at the solar system, happen X number of years, which makes it MORE LIKELY that you, me, or anyone else who's ever lived in history would die from an asteroid strike than from any other known factor.

      We have a pseudo-record of one particular meteor strike. One which we think wiped out over 90% of the diversity of life in one blow. It's what killed off the dinosaurs.

      Just because WHO doesn't include in their statistics for RECORDED causes of death for the last 100 years for humans alone, doesn't mean you aren't statistically MORE LIKELY to die of it.

    20. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are the causes of death HISTORICALLY (in certain particular years)

      Fact is the most LIKELY (in terms of RISK) is something like an asteroid collision

    21. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by rioki · · Score: 1

      Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow

    22. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by ledow · · Score: 1

      YES.

      That's what the doomsday clock is saying.

      These things are species-ending DOOMSDAY scenarios.

      The first nuclear war will obliterate the planet and CAUSE (if not immediately, but certainly over time) the deaths of something like half the population of the planet. Global warming, similarly if it's uncontrolled and we follow the worst predications.

      This is exactly the point of the clock.

      It's called DOOMSDAY for a reason. "Armageddon". End of the world. Game over. Last one out please switch off the lights.

      The Black Death, a perfectly normal natural phenomenon: "The trend of recent research is pointing to a figure more like 45â"50% of the European population dying during a four-year period" because of it. This is the sort of stuff we're talking about.

      Not a couple of Ebola cases in Africa, or a warmonger blowing up a town or two, or people keeling over from heart disease. We're talking significant fractions of the human race dying from what may quite well be avoidable scenarios.

      And this is what the Doomsday clock, backed by Nobel Prize laureates, is supposed to draw your attention to while you all fuss over how the numbers "aren't realistic" and how a few thousand died in this or that event.

    23. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Ingcuervo · · Score: 0

      im sorry to break this to you pal, but half population of europe != half world population... for couple of people at least ;) I know that we are talking about catastrophic scenarios, but my point is not that they are inoffensive, my point is that we dont need to go that deep into killing half population of the planet to already declare an armageddon, the consequences of losing "only" 1 billion people (1 out of 7) would be huge, and probably not recoverable in medium lapse. an scenario that reaches for half the population, probably will not stop there

    24. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Any population that can establish a colony somewhere off Earth is by definition a group who accepts the most radical type of global-for-temselves engineering. It will be interesting to see what evolution rate they can achieve in comparison to the terrestrial population.

    25. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by abies · · Score: 1

      10 bilions is number which they are forecasting assuming current mode of development/civilisation - which is scenario a). Main limiting factor of population growth here is education/freedom of women in developed world. It doesn't matter if birth control is working - it is important if women are allowed to use it and if they actually care. If your only role in life is childbearing, you might not even consider that.

      My stab at 15 billions (which is of course random number, just want to make it bigger than 10 billion) is that if we go into fully green/sustainable model at reduced consumption, sacrificing development/science and giving priority to 'life' and humanity, is that IMHO, we will degrade culture wise in these aspects. Focus will move to critical things - farming, _basic_ healthcare, environment protection, while sacrificing things like people mobility, global communication, freedom, etc. I expect that closed, smaller communities will then start perceiving role and rights of women bit differently. We will go from 35-year old single ladies with birth-control jumping parties in big cities back to big Mormon-like families, with women being responsible for the house and child bearing. At the same time, reasonable basic healthcare and hugely improved farming will allow population growth higher than it was possible back in earlier ages.

    26. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      I don't always agree with Carlin's nitpicking of common phrases but his save the planet one was gold...

    27. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, you initially said "statistically", which is just wrong. Of the estimated 30 billion or so people that have died since Homo Sapiens became a species, 0 of them have died of an asteroid strike, so statistically, it is at the bottom of the list, along with sun going super nova, alien invasion, space herpes, moon colliding with Earth, giant space turtle stepping on Earth, Earth being swallowed by a black hole, etc.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    28. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should kill 6+ billion people? Are you fucking insane?

    29. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hundred Years' War (1337 to 1453) combined with the black death from ~1440 resulted in halving the populations between 1300 and 1400 in France and England, ending at a level comparable to what it was in ~1000. [from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_de_Cent_Ans#Cons.C3.A9quences_d.C3.A9mographiques ]

    30. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So few casualties." "A few thousand casualties." Oh, that's rich, very rich. Someone's been watching too much cable news and bought into the talking head's bullshit.

      Here's a little, real problem known as the Iraq War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Overview._Iraqi_death_estimates_by_source):

      Some points that Fox News probably failed to mention to you:
      - over 100,000 civilian casualties recorded by multiple, independent agencies (Wikileaks, United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, The Human Rights Ministry of the Iraqi government, etc).
      - over 1.8 million refugees displaced by the war, as of a study conducted in 2006 by the UN.
      - "More than one in four U.S. troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment, according to The Pentagon's first detailed screening of service members leaving a war zone." (USA Today, 2005)
      - "Based on the analysis that follows we estimate that the 2003 Iraq war produced between 7,600 and 10,800 Iraqi combatant fatalities."
      The study also stated: "Our analysis of the evidence leads to the conclusion that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants â" that is: civilians who did not take up arms." (Project on Defense Alternatives, Cambridge Massachusetts )

      Sure, if you're a white, middle class pile of human garbage who does nothing and serves no one, you're at very little risk of being killed in a war. None of those are issues to you because you don't care, you're a selfish, well-to-do piece of shit who's never seen or experienced the horrors of war beyond what they'll show on cable news for a ratings boost. The actual people fighting in said war would likely take issue with your "analysis" of the situation. The irony of it is that you specifically single out Fox News as a distraction from a "real issue facing humanity for once.." You don't consider hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths a "real issue" I suppose? Of course not, you're an American. Unless it's your people getting killed, there are no casualties, only "collateral damage." About 2000 people died on the September 11th attacks, that's a small fraction of the number of people you've killed in Iraq who weren't even holding a weapon to defend themselves with. Not a "real issue" eh? How about one closer to home then, the fact that suicide rates among returning US veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq have skyrocketed to the point that more of your soldiers are dying at their own hands than that of the enemy? It's as if the people on the front lines of your immoral war are beginning to develop a conscience...or at the very least, they realize that they'd only be coming home to a country full of ignorant, middle class white slobs like you who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

    31. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by abies · · Score: 1

      Not kill. Try to reduce population in 100 year horizon. Stop society which is dependent on population growth to maintain itself.

      People are saying 'with such and such technologies and reducing useless consumption, Earth can sustain n (10,15,50) billions of people'. Sure. But what for? I don't think that we should test limits of Earth. There is no reason to have 10 billion people, even if we can. We should ask ourselfs, what is the minimal amount of population which gives enough stability, protection from plagues and other disasters and can produce enough science output to go forward to next stage evolution/colonization/whatever.

      I think that 1-2 billions of people on well balanced world can produce a lot more science output than 10 billions fully driven by requirements of sustenance.

      We need to colonize universe - we cannot keep all eggs in single basket. Direct colonization by sending billions of people on starships is just not going to happen - energy costs are too high. For me, hard AI, mind upload and heavy bioengineering (growing modified organizms and bodies tailored for target environment) is only remotely possible way of achieving it (2 of these are probably enough). But to achieve that, you need a lot of research and very stable base for hundreds of years. It will NOT solve population problem, it will not solve resource issue. Earth as a civiliasation center is going to die. I think that we should aim for having it running for tens of thousands of years with smaller population (but big enough to expand scientifically), rather than burning out in few hundred years with all the efforts in meantime spent on maintaing that population.

      Obviously, realist in me knows that it will never happen. It would require world-wide totalitarian government with no revolution of 'populists' and if such government appears, it will spend effort in preserving and strengthening itself rather than any external goals.

    32. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 4 children... It's good to know that in 100 years people like me will outnumber people like you...

    33. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      So we should kill 6+ billion people? Are you fucking insane?

      That's a strawman argument.

      Killing people was not suggested. Are you insane?

      The easiest way to reduce population "in few hundred years" is to reduce the birth rate slightly.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    34. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      im sorry to break this to you pal, but half population of europe != half world population

      He's referring to an event that happened in the Middle Ages where the world wasn't anywhere near connected as it is now.

      If a fatal disease had an outbreak somewhere these days, chances are it would quickly spread to epidemic levels unless it is immediately quarantined.

      And no, moving to Madagascar won't help.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    35. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by hendrips · · Score: 1

      It's often hard to remember how devastating ancient wars were because there's no visual evidence and almost no testimony from the average population. Also, many of the deaths were indirect, as ancient warfare tended to cause widespread plague and famine.

      In the Hundred Years War (actually a series of seven wars from 1337 to 1453) between England and France, France lost over half of its population ... and that was a conflict that France won decisively.

      There were a few cultures where the situation you describe held true. In Ancient Greece, between the 8th and 6th centuries B.C., wars were mostly small scale affairs that resembled an extremely violent rugby match, with ritually defined locations, combatants, and prizes (usually a herd of goats). But those days were long past by the 5th century, when the Peloponnesian War erupted. We know that Athens lost at least a third of its population during that war, and they got off lucky compared to many other Greek city states, in which the entire citizenry were genocidally wiped out.

    36. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Given the number and size of big collisions in the past, I'm extremely unlikely to die from an asteroid collision. One would kill lots and lots of people, but if one happens every hundred million years on the average ,and I live one hundred years, the chances are one in a million that I'll see one. I'm betting on heart disease or cancer, myself.

      Nuclear war is unlikely to happen on a big scale. On a small scale, it will kill millions, but not much beyond that. In the 1950s and early 1960s, there were sound reasons for the US and USSR to launch full-scale attacks at each other, and that would have been really, really bad. Nukes will be used only by countries that think they have nothing to lose, since they will lose everything. Therefore, it will be small scale, and while horrible will not be anywhere near doomsday.

      Global warming and climate change will cause a lot of suffering, and likely will cause millions to die. That's not doomsday.

      I'm not seeing a reasonable doomsday scenario.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except maybe for white middle-class piles of garbage who made up the majority of the 11-Bravos in my outfit, asshole.

    38. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      In practice, however, most every sexually active woman who has both education about family planning and cheap access to birth control uses some form of it, even those in regions where they have to hide their usage from their husbands (for example, monthly injections are becoming quite popular in many parts of Africa). Children are *expensive*, and the population segment which is growing fastest is also the poorest: the difference between having a couple children or a handful can often be the difference between being able to provide your family with a comfortable, upwardly mobile life, or struggling to avoid starvation.

      And while men may sometimes get a measure of their sense of reproductive worth from the number of children they have fathered, women are far more likely to measure it in terms of the quality of life they can give to those children - something that improves with fewer children pretty much everywhere on the economic ladder. It's not a complex concept - examples abound everywhere, especially in the places where the population is exploding. The only sometimes alien idea is that needs to be introduced is that you can willfully choose how many children you have, and when, rather than just quietly pray that another pregnancy doesn't tip you into a downward spiral of poverty.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    39. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for trying to make Idiocracy a reality.

    40. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow

      Sure. You can sweat all you like. That's not the problem.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    41. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...sacrificing development/science..."

      Why would you have to do that? It's development & science which will bring us the *ability* to "go into fully green/sustainable model at reduced consumption" without a drastically *decreased* population.

    42. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by pamar · · Score: 1

      Thanks for expanding on this.

    43. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Alien1024 · · Score: 1
      That would be a valid point if human lifespan was in the millions of years. Unfortunately, the oldest verified person ever lived for ~122 years. Globally catastrophic asteroid strikes of the scale that killed dinosaurs don't happen very often. The last one happened 65 million years ago. So that's a red herring.

      An astronomer estimated the chance of being killed by an asteroid as 1 in 700,000.

      As natural disasters go, any person is far more likely to die from tsunamis, earthquakes and extreme weather events.

    44. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In United States from cancer and cardiovascular diseases almost 4 thousands of Americans are dying every day. Not that the death is avoidable, but proper nutrition, exercise and lifestyle can prolong life by a decade for many.

      Yes, but if I eat unhealthy food I will die sooner and be less of a burden on subsequent generations. I'm doing my part!

    45. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      War has ALWAYS gone on. Never have we had wars with SO FEW casualties. Certainly never have we had wars with SUCH a small percentage of the population as casualties. Historically, wars have been known to obliterate 50% of the population of a country quite easily. Same for plagues, etc.

      Indeed. Well stated. As scary as ISIS is, during the 80's you could practically call it 'Africa'. 'Most' of the continent was that way, today they're much better off, and improving rapidly. More than enough to over-balance the increased violence in the middle east.

      There was a point in history where violence was the 2nd leading cause of death behind disease.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    46. Re:Who they do not attempt to stay relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because WHO doesn't include in their statistics for RECORDED causes of death for the last 100 years for humans alone, doesn't mean you aren't statistically MORE LIKELY to die of it.

      Yea, but I'm not going to live another 100 years, and I don't think that there has been that many unrecorded asteroid strike deaths in the last century. Would make an interesting scifi movie, though....

  5. Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For all the use and meaning the clock has. The clock doesn't reflect the world state as much as it does their directors political aims of the moment.

    1. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. If you replace the word Doomsday with the phrase Government Grant Money, it makes a lot more sense.

    2. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by Sir_Substance · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'd be on the board of the Government Grant Money Clock like a shot!

      5 minutes to taxpayer funded flights to Hawaii!

    3. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by stephanruby · · Score: 0

      Everybody knows, the symbolic pregnancy test for the anti-Christ is still the most accurate scientific indicator for doomsday. At least, the result of that test is binary. Either someone is pregnant with the anti-Christ, or no one is pregnant with the anti-Christ. Thus far, the result has been "no anti-Christ yet", which tracks pretty well with most sonograms we know about.

      5 minutes on the doomsday clock? What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean we only have 5 minutes left to live? or fifty years? or an additional five thousand years? The claim isn't even falsifiable, since it's not anchored to any specific meaning whatsoever.

    4. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by N!k0N · · Score: 2

      What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean we only have 5 minutes left to live? or fifty years? or an additional five thousand years? The claim isn't even falsifiable, since it's not anchored to any specific meaning whatsoever.

      "Midnight" = Imminent global thermonuclear war (or, these days "catastrophic climate change")
      "x Minutes to Midnight" = Indicator of how close international tensions are to breaking (or, "catastrophic climate change" -- however they define that).

      Thing is, I will agree that the clock's usage is pretty awful -- it's updated infrequently enough that it can only be considered as an indicator of the tensions for the few days before and after the actual update. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis - arguably the closest humanity has come to total annihilation - was resolved in between updates to the clock, and as such did not effect a change to the clock in 1962.

    5. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I think it's a good thing it's not updated too frequently, otherwise they WOULD be more tempted to respond to every crisis by moving the hands. This way, when the hands are moved, it's seen as a significant event because it IS relatively rare.

      And for those who argue that it is irrelevant to write about it before the event, it gets people thinking (and talking) about why they want to move the hands this time, and maybe look at the issues involved in a slightly different way than "yeah yeah business as usual ..."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by Ragica · · Score: 1

      At least it's science-based politics, which one hopes some would consider at least better than the usual utterly self-serving and corporate greed based politics out there.

    7. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by Ragica · · Score: 2

      Is there any evidence that any scientists on this board directly benefit from grants due to the clock or their statements surrounding their analysis related to the clock?

    8. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the words of Dr. Manhattan:

      I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.

    9. Re:Might as well have the doomsday popomatic by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      I agree. Several of the moves seem completely political and not realistic. For instance, the fall of the USSR should not have been seen as such a positive development for world safety. The army in Russia was severely underfunded up to and for much of the decade after the USSR dissolved, meaning the likelihood of a nuclear warhead being stolen and sold was significantly more realistic. Or worse, a rogue general going ballistic about the union breaking up.

  6. But wait, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come back tomorrow. One day We'll have a winner....

  7. Wider scope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they taking Islam into account now?

    Captcha: Subdue.

    1. Re:Wider scope by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      For all the hype... even if islam rules the world it will just be change in the world, not the end of it. They are not the first ideology of their kind, and won't be the last to rule a large chunk of the planet.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
  8. End of the world song? by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 0

    This is mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
    1. Re:End of the world song? by hoborg1 · · Score: 1

      http://youtu.be/Y6ljFaKRTrI

    2. Re:End of the world song? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      More specifically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFkryh6hC-k

  9. No reason to worry by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They will be leaping back a second very soon.

  10. Re:The doomsday clock should be renamed. by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 0

    It's interesting reading your response to this. I saw it as "clever people try to assess big problems facing us, and communicate it in a way most people can easily understand". You saw it as fear mongering by the left.

    Interestingly, there have been several studies that link political ideologies with fear-response. For example, see:

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

    Conservative people tend to have a higher disgust response, be more aggressive, and more resistant to change or things that appear threatening. Liberals tend to be not as frightened by apparent danger and more accepting of possibly disruptive change.

    Of course, this may be completely wrong, but it does tally with my (entirely unscientific) experience.

  11. Re: The doomsday clock should be renamed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who did those studies? Were they truly nonbias or by left leaning groups? Sounds like to me that you picked those studies that fit your agenda and don't provide any real facts.

  12. Emphasis on the right word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The clock COULD move today, as it can every year, once a year.
    But for the last five years, it hasn't moved.
    Add in some words like 'ominous', and you can use it to advocate your personal beliefs and opinions.

    And even if it were to move to 4 minutes before midnight, that's still twice as far from doom as it said in 1953.

    1. Re:Emphasis on the right word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, sorry, the last 3 years, not 5.

  13. Major Bummer Day Clock by retroworks · · Score: 2

    They could at least reduce the hyperbole. It would be pretty hard to doom the Earth without going through several decades that just suck, first.

    --
    Gently reply
  14. Re: The doomsday clock should be renamed. by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

    No idea who the researchers are, and I don't have an agenda. I linked to Wikipedia!

    I have read about some of these studies before, on the web, and in fairly lay publications like New Scientist. I have no idea if they are wrong, true, or just some vast liberal conspiracy by left-leaning scientists to irritate their conservative colleagues!

    I was only prompted to reply because the original poster saw it as political "fear" propoganda from "the left", and I saw it quite differently. Which made me think of these studies... make of them what you will!

  15. filler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Summary: Someone might meet and do something some day in the future. This isn't news, it's filler.

  16. *Yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most pretentious lefty scientists out there don't approve of what the various world governments are doing, and so will whittle off a minute to make their point. Film at 11.

    1. Re:*Yawn* by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      The clock has actually moved back and forth over the years. Why do *you* think a minute will come off this year?

    2. Re:*Yawn* by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, AC thinks they will scrap another minute because they are fear-mongering lefty scientists. If they add time, then he is wrong. But I would have to agree that if they take a minute out, then they are just fear mongering, or trying to make a political statement about the environment. In truth, nuclear devastation is a real threat to life as we know it and could happen in a matter of minutes. climate change is an affect to the climate which could take decades to have any noticeable affect, although we measure it daily. Not that the climate isn't important, but it doesn't justify changing the nuclear doomsday clock. Yes, it is the nuclear doomsday clock, and has been since 1947. The word "Climate: did not show up in the reasons behind adjusting the time until 2007, despite the fact that man had been affecting the climate since before the idea of the clock arose.
      If they need to make a Climate change clock and set it to 100 years until Climate Change midnight, that is fine, but there is no reason to hijack another clock that already has a stated purpose.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:*Yawn* by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      So if a minute comes off, it's just fear mongering. And if one or two goes on? We pat ourselves on the back and ignore it? Seems like we get to ignore it in both cases!

      Good point about climate change though. I also noticed they had moved beyond just the nuclear threat. I suppose it is called the Domesday clock, not the "Nuclear Threat Clock", but I kind of agree it should stick with what it was established for.

      (btw: I think climate change is a real threat, but there are lots of existential threats other than nuclear weapons and climate change.)

  17. Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...I would only argue that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a picture of oxygen to a drowning man."

    -Dr. Manhattan

  18. Leftists to stamp their feet in disappointment by EmagGeek · · Score: 0

    Leftists to stamp their feet in disappointment after the outcome of the most recent US election. News at 11.

  19. Nuclear Weapons - Climate Change, Comparable? by fygment · · Score: 0

    Seriously? Proliferation of chemica/biological weapons doesn't register a nod over something as nebulous and topical as climate change?

    What an example of bald-faced political commentary. Regardless of its origins with scientists, this is now just another meaningless and pretentious art show.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  20. piss-poor scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's always been 5 minutes to midnight, meaning you really only have 5 settings. It's about as useful as the stupid US "terror level" colors.

    1. Re:piss-poor scale by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Every time those scientists haul out the clock metaphor I lose a ton of respect for them.

    2. Re:piss-poor scale by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C...

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  21. And if it sees its shadow...? by Stele · · Score: 1

    What happens if the doomsday clock sees its shadow again?

    1. Re:And if it sees its shadow...? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      6 more years of Putin without a shirt.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  22. World's Worst Clock by blogagog · · Score: 4, Funny

    That clock is worse than the one in Windows that tells you how long it will take to install something.

  23. Re:After moot retired from 4chan... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Well - it's already 22 minutes past midnight.

    We passed midnight in 1945.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  24. Re:The doomsday clock should be renamed. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Don't confuse the hipster doom lovers who follow every movement of the clock with those who set the clock. It's maximum 'optimistic' setting came after the fall of Communism, and lasted through the Nineties to 9/11.

  25. Re:After moot retired from 4chan... by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A serious question here, has the clock EVER been moved backwards? I mean, every time I hear about it, it's some PR stunt moving it forwards. But I've never seen a press conference where they joyously moved it back. It seems like at the end of the Cold War, it should have been moved WAY back. But I don't recall them ever doing it. And if this "clock" only moves in one direction and can never acknowledge progress, then it's a complete joke. It's like that annoying friend who can only think of things to bitch and moan about, even when he wins the lottery.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  26. I don't care by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    I live in a DMT-1 time zone, so it's only just before 11 pm here.

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  27. Re:After moot retired from 4chan... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, it has. I believe it was after the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR broke up.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  28. It is in no way science based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He problem is that this is in no way science based. It's completely, 100% political.

  29. Three years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your clock needs new batteries.

  30. they won't move it backwards.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they won't move it backwards.. they'll just add 12 decimal points. sort of like doom inflation

  31. Re:After moot retired from 4chan... by AC-x · · Score: 4, Informative

    It goes up and down all the time.

  32. Svavar Knutur and Marketa Irglova - World burns by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    Interesting mix of themes in that song, thanks...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Svavar Knutur and Marketa Irglova - World burns by Rei · · Score: 1

      Svavar Knútur is great... the music's really pretty, but between songs he's a standup comedian. ;) That said, some of his songs are funny too... one of his songs (in Icelandic) is about a guy on his way to propose to his girlfriend when he gets bitten by a zombie, and he meets up with her and is trying to propose while slowly turning into a zombie and increasingly wanting to eat her instead... but it turns out that she was bitten by a zombie too, so they end up living happily ever after ;) Oh, and then there's this song.

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
  33. Oh, I know this one! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    It's #612.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  34. Clocks aren't used anymore! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right? Kids don't have "watches" - they use their smartphones' digital display.

    So, let's modernize!

    How about a "Doomsday Color Alert System"? We could have Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, and Blue levels. And then never use Green or Blue, and have Orange be the basic default.

  35. The obligatory.. by Pax681 · · Score: 1

    IronMaiden link
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:The obligatory.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      \m/ \m/

  36. 11:04 by daenris · · Score: 1

    So it's 11:04 EST now, and no live feed. I'm taking this to mean the clock was advanced past midnight, and we're all actually dead now.

    1. Re:11:04 by daenris · · Score: 1

      Or, based on the timer going on the livestream now, they were streaming. But there was no apparent link from either the front page or yesterday's or today's story about watching it live.

  37. Re:After moot retired from 4chan... by webgit · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you didn't read the article... "The clock's hands retreated to 11:43 p.m., 17 minutes to midnight, in December 1991, after the world's nuclear superpowers signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty."

  38. Global Thermonuclear War by russotto · · Score: 1

    The doomsday clock was about nuclear war originally. When they added climate change (now that global thermonuclear war seems extremely unlikely) it was a desperate attempt to keep the clock somehow relevant. It's not. At least not unless Putin gets even crazier.

  39. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There it is again.. "climate change".. you conspiracy theorists always sneak it in there

  40. And if it sees its shadow...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if the doomsday clock sees its shadow again?

    I guess six more weeks of nuclear winter

    Edit: captcha is "seasons". Coincidence ?...

  41. Insensitive Clods! by PPH · · Score: 1

    Five minutes before Midnight? I always thought it was nearly lunchtime!

    Perhaps if these scientists had adopted a digital clock face with military time it wouldn't have been so confusing.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  42. MAD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the original point of it was to show how close the world was to destroying itself through Mutual Assured Destruction... and heck, considering the turmoil in the middle east, the tensions between Russia and the rest of the world... The threat of North Korea and Iran having Nuclear capabilities. uh yeah... Doomsday clock should move up...

    1. Re:MAD? by retroworks · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a single nuclear blast or two just sucks. It would take a LOT of nukes to destroy the world, and there are far fewer missiles now than when the Doomsday clock started. It seems extremely unlikely the Mideast would get into Mutually Assured Destruction.

      --
      Gently reply
    2. Re:MAD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually doesn't take a lot of nukes to destroy the world.

      sauce: Work with them.

  43. I hope they move it soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What good is a clock that doesn't change very often? Even better: invent a clock that records information we actually care about and can use daily.

  44. Duh by ErGalvao · · Score: 1

    It could also stay still and "move" can mean "move backwards", so the title is sensationalist at best.

    --
    Er Galvão Abbott - IT Consultant and Developer
  45. reflects political environment, more like it by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    It's more that the clock reflects the current global political climate.

    Ie when Pakistan and India, both nuclear powers, are duking it out, the clock goes closer to midnight.

    I strongly suspect that the announcement is due to strong rhetoric from russian leadership - I believe recently either Putin or one of his lackeys declared that they could "raze" the US. There's also been increasingly aggressive "patrols" by Russian bombers along the US and Europe, the recent sub incident in Sweden, and of course the invasion of Ukraine.

    --
    Please help metamoderate.
  46. Re:After moot retired from 4chan... by jfengel · · Score: 1

    I hadn't realized it had gotten as high as 17. The number is arbitrary, of course, at this point it's tricky to remember that decade between the START treaty and 9/11 where we genuinely didn't expect the world to come crashing down on our heads.

  47. piss-poor scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it has ranged between 2 and 17 minutes to midnight. And it has an entire 24 hours (1440 seconds) worth of possible settings.

  48. Oh whatever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really don't care, If I want more fear in my life I'll go swim with sharks, but for now I see no benefit in caring about these people's opinion.

  49. Re:After moot retired from 4chan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It goes up and down all the time.

    Sub: Confliclts in minds-Identity crisis
    Tree tier Conflicts in Minds are prevalent over the continents -due Horse nubulae.
    Wisdom Council should help through Cosmology World Peace
    Vidyardhi Nanduri