Slashdot Mirror
The Doomsday Clock Is Reset: Closest To Midnight Since The 1950s (npr.org)
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has taken the unprecedented step of moving the Doomsday Clock ahead 30 seconds, taking the world to two-and-a-half-minute to midnight. The scientists said Thursday that several factors weighed heavily in their decision, particularly climate change denial by people in power -- they cited U.S. President Donald Trump -- and talk about more nuclear weapons. From a report on NPR: The setting is the closest the clock has come to midnight since 1953, when scientists moved it to two minutes from midnight after seeing both the U.S. and the Soviet Union test hydrogen bombs. It remained at that mark until 1960. "Make no mistake, this has been a difficult year," Rachel Bronson, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said as the new setting was announced Thursday.
This is a meaningless metric. There is no such thing as doomsday. The World is not a clock. You are OK. Breathe out.
Make some arbitrary metric from an infinite series of divisible time units, politicize it, and call it "science".
And no, "advancing" the "clock" is hardly an unprecedented event.
And people call eschatology a dubious methodology.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
No "Science" behind the reasoning of what they set their doomsday clock at.
This sounds like someone's way of expressing personal disdain for different political situations.
Particularly climate change denial by people in power -- they cited U.S. President Donald Trump -- and talk about more nuclear weapons.
Climate change in the short term is as inevitable as continued population growth.
It's not too important whether people in power acknowledge it; It's going to happen.
If you want to stop climate change, then make human populations stop growing and start declining
in countries that consume the most energy per person, And build nuclear power capacity, LOTS of
nuclear power capacity.
"Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity's most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change ... This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a U.S. presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change."
Climate change changes resource availability. Particularly water. If areas that once had water no longer have water that will put stress on their economy potentially making them less politically stable.
If natural disasters increase linked to climate change, certain seas may no longer be feasible to collect oil from. Perhaps flooding from rising sea levels will cause areas to be evacuated causing widespread homelessness and unrest.
Climate change has upset the status quo many times over history. Encouraging the Vikings to leave Scandinavia and invade Europe. The mass migrations of populations throughout Europe, the so called "barbarian invasion" of Rome. Dynasties have been overturned in China with links to climate change, or natural disasters.
Climate change whether man made or natural always upsets the status quo... but now we have nuclear weapons.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The US military recognizes that global warming puts stress on people and governments. Human life can prosper with a changed climate, but it can't always continue in-place. People may have to move, because their current habitation may no longer be habitable. If that movement requires crossing national borders, it becomes an international incident.
That's why global warming advances the Doomsday Clock - its side-effects on national sovereignty and politics.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If the facts are so important, why don't you present facts?
We do, we present facts on a regular basis. That's our job.
Problem is, the regular person doesn't spend much time reading academic journals. They'd rather get their news from Facebook or Twitter. So we've created these sensationalist measures to call attention and stir debate on the real facts that otherwise might go unnoticed by the general population.
Just 30 seconds to go.
This signature is false.
I have no respect for these guys; they simply use their scientific credentials to promote their own political prejudices. These people are so ignorant, they still believe in a Malthusian catastrophe.
I think The Onion puts it pretty well:
Doomsday Clock Pushed To One Minute To Midnight After Arby’s Threatens Launch Of 3-Cheese Jalapeño Beef ’N Bacon Melt
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
Silicon Valley will be under four feet of water by 2100...
So you're saying there's a silver lining.
This was embarrassing.
The Mexican president canceling a meeting in a huff? Not so much.
This is a *Doomsday* clock, yes? As in, something that measures how close we potentially are to Doomsday - that is, an event that leads to the total extinction of the human race.
Can anyone - anyone! - say with a straight face that we are closer to that scenario right now than we were, say, at the height of the Cold War? That was a period when two nuclear superpowers were genuinely considering launching thousands of nuclear warheads at each other; where one bad day might literally end the species.
I don't disagree with the assessment that the world has become less stable recently. I think the prospect of some rogue dictator or terrorist group setting off a nuclear bomb is high and increasing. However, the retaliatory aspect is missing: If Russia had nuked New York, America would have levelled Russia in response. One nuke would have lead to thousands. But if, say, ISIS nukes New York... what target is there to hit back at? Any response would almost certainly be in the form of conventional weapons. There would be chaos and war, sure, but not outright extinction.
The truth is, we are waaaaay further away from Doomsday than we were in the '60s.
-- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
So you're saying there's a silver lining.
Yes, Silicon Valley real estate prices will be under water.
No, what's being suggested is that we alter the way we produce energy now so we don't fuck our grandchildren over. Sea level rise is already occuring (just ask your average insurance actuary), so there's no "thousand years from now" to talk about. There are coastal areas that will be significantly affected well within my lifetime.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Tumbled? What a load of ultra-right propagandist bulls**t (a.k.a. Fake News). The Mexican dollar got slightly stronger yesterday, and after the announcement, it weakened to almost precisely where it opened yesterday. It is still considerably stronger than it was a week ago, and there's no indication that it is continuing to get weaker as a result of cancelling the meeting with Trump.
In other words, there was a bit of pure statistical noise that resulted in a tiny change that happened to coincide in timing with the cancellation. The market didn't really react to that at all, and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Any trade war between the U.S. and Mexico will have little effect on the relative values of our currency, because we both rely on each other pretty heavily. What it will do is lower the dollar of both the Peso and the Dollar against all other world currencies.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
God, it sickens me that I have to defend trump, but there is so much BS on this. :
It amazes me that so few on the far left pay attention to what is really happening.
1) Putin is invading numerous areas for controlling them. Putin shows that he has no issues with taking what is not his. That is OK.
Putin threatens the west with nuclear war, and that is OK.
Trump (and unknown) gets into office and then we have nuclear war issues that are as bad as 1953.
2) China is not only emitting 3-5x the amount of CO2 that America does, but they continue to grow at a frightening rate (check OCO2, not chinese gov numbers).
Trump gets in and says that he will help Coal. Yet, wind already costs less to run than coal does or can. And solar continues downward. IOW, coal really can not be expanded.
Then Trump is talking about letting America export oil/nat gas. That will increase America's nat gas on the market, BUT, all it will do is lower the prices elsewhere. IOW, it will not increase the burning of it, or any more CO2.
So, exactly why is this moved now, and why is this blamed on Trump?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
yes, but why did Putin's actions for the last 5 years do nothing?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So, this is basically like when they awarded a Nobel prize first to Al Gore and then to Obama (in his first year in office) just to make sure to remind everybody how much they hated George Bush (and Republicans in general)?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
It's funny that people making this argument are generally also happy to increase the overwhelming burden of debt we pass to our grandchildren. It's a consistent view though: everything is just another reason to increase government power, from forcing action on climate change to increasing spending, it's all good.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And you don't think fucking over the next few generations by unrestrained CO2 emissions, thus creating vast costs for them to pay for, isn't passing on a debt?
How about this. We use market forces to fix the problem, slap a price on carbon, and then we start solving the problem now. Screw the carbon credits and all that nonsense. Charge $200 a ton for emissions across the board.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But, hey, I can see why you would fear an idiot that speaks during election time, as opposed to somebody that is showing massive actions of what they are capable of doing.
Putin is former KGB agent. Of course, he wants to bring Russia back to its former military glory. All those actions you cited was fairly routine during the Cold War — not surprising that Putin dusted off the Soviet playbook. But Putin is the least likely person to start a nuclear war because he knows its unwinnable. Trump is dangerous because he doesn't know anything and willfully ignorant beyond his immediate needs for self-glorification.
I thought it was almost lunchtime.
Damn!
Have gnu, will travel.
Btw, Trump won the primary 1500 delegates to 500, how can you even remotely say that "a majority of Republican voters voted against him during the primaries".
Trump won by default by getting the most votes in a crowded field. He got less than 50% of the vote in most primary elections. He didn't reach 50% until the end.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-trump-reaches-50-percent-support-nationally-first-time-n562061
Now, if you want to discuss how super-delegates allowed HRC to steal the primary to Bernie, I'm all there for you, brother.
Super delegates has been a standard feature of Democratic conventions since 1968. After Super Tuesday, Bernie needed to win every election with 60% of the vote to win the nomination. He repeatedly failed to get those votes. If super delegates weren't considered towards the nomination, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win.
Trump won by default by getting the most votes in a crowded field. He got less than 50% of the vote in most primary elections. He didn't reach 50% until the end.
There was more than 2 candidates, so that's no problem. Actually the GoP was actually more democratic then the Democrats, as they didn't prevent people from running in the primary (as the Dems did with L. Lessig).
Super delegates has been a standard feature of Democratic conventions since 1968. After Super Tuesday, Bernie needed to win every election with 60% of the vote to win the nomination. He repeatedly failed to get thos e votes. If super delegates weren't considered towards the nomination, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win.
It doesn't make them right, or even democratic... To some extend, it actually makes them all alike the USSR' Central Committee.
when daylight savings time ends.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
More people die from cold waves than from heat waves. And higher CO2 increases crop yields. Deserts over the past 30 years have been shrinking as atmospheric CO2 has risen. The theory of increased CO2 leading to increased hurricanes hasn't panned out. So where's the threat to humanity here? Shrinking property values for coastal mansions?
"Hillary was openly hostile with Russia, and while I doubt it would have reached the point of increased risk of nuclear war, Russia still has real nukes, so you never know. Trump on the other hand is, if anything, too friendly with Russia."
Consider very recent history. George W. Bush ran his whole campaign in 2000 on a "compassionate conservative" platform, including that we needed to put America first, not being involved in foreign adventures, stop telling other countries what to do, etc. But he was a dimwitted cowboy wannabe who had no capacity for a real commitment or follow-through to that. He surrounded himself with belligerent neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld and gave them incredible power. He spent the summer of 2001 saber-rattling at China which turned out not to be the actual brewing threat. Then we did suffer an actual attack on 9/11 and bam, within 24 hours he's freaked out and flipped to the exact opposite; global alliances, regime change, and a philosophy of first-strike invasions if needed around the globe. Before his term was done he'd started two separate intercontinental wars -- one having entirely nothing to do with the attack on us -- which have proved to be the longest in American history, and still not done after almost two decades now.
That is the proven historical result of a fundamentally dumb, belligerent, yahoo, volatile commander-in-chief. It's easy to predict; this is the standard reaction of a chaotic, short-attention-span bully. Sometime in a quiet space ask yourself this: Is Trump truly more or less volatile than George W. Bush?
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
No, it's been moved forward because the man who is now president of the United States of America, a very heavily armed nuclear power, that has stated it is "at war" with terrorism, where terrorism is sourced from a fairly distinct group of countries, has said:
And in response to this remark by interviewer Matthews...
Trump said:
That's a "holy shit, the man is outright insane" remark. Period. That's not why we make them. We make them because of MAD; which is to say as a deterrent against others using them. Russa, China, even stupid little North Korea shoots them off, then we guarantee we will shoot ours off in response. IOW, whoever uses them gets to meet their own particular sky-daddy. Or hellspawn, as the case may be.
In response to interviewer Bolling, who said, in the context of using nuclear weapons:
Trump responded:
In both cases, after he said these things, he walked them back. However, he said them, and given the usual word salad he spews, they have to serve as a window into his attitudes. You can only pick out individual remarks in Trump's meanderings; he presents incoherent verbal streams when taken more than a sentence at a time (which is why Twitter kind of works for him... he has to limit his remarks to 140 characters. It provides the structure he is incapable of providing for himself.)
Interviewer Dickerson:
Trump responds:
Let's just be perfectly clear about this: No sane person wants the USA to be "unpredictable" about its policy for use of nuclear weapons. This is a window into the fact that Trump is a fucking idiot. Not just any fucking idiot, but THE fucking idiot with his finger on the button. He's insane.
This is the root of the problem. Trump's obviously not like previous presidents. So people are paying very, very close attention to what he says. And there are times when what he says is very, very worrisome. As above.
So yes, there's a reason people are thinking we're closer to the use of nuclear weapons, and that reason isn't a dislike of Trump; it's just actually listening to what the man has said on the subject. A sane person would not make the remarks Trump has made. Simply would not. He is visibly, obviously, and frighteningly batshit. And he's the guy who can shoot them off. If it's North Korea he decides to make glow, or some little Arab country, we might not see an escalation; then again, we might. Perhaps if we fire, Israel will too; perhaps Russia will feel it needs to step in. Pakistan. India. Etc.
It's also worth noting that Trump has spent the last two years making severe economic threats in China's direction. China is another nuclear power, and they are not like us in their thinking. It is not wise to severely piss off people you do not understand -- and it is patently obvious that Trump does not understand China at all. I mean, quite aside from the demonstrated fact that he doesn't understand why we have nuc
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Everyone seems to be attacking or defending the clock along thinly-veiled pro/anti-Trump lines. Let's pause for a moment and start a discussion about the underlying state of the world the clock is supposed to represent. To help with this, here's a short list of why the clock moved closer to midnight, taken from the 2017 Clock Statement written by the scientists who made the decision to move the clock:
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction