We're three minutes from midnight. Our civilization is about to end. At least that's what Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a magazine you haven't read, thinks. It is unlike any other news outlet. However, the doomsday clock is different. Each time the minute hand moves on this clock, the world becomes one step closer or further from its death. And now this watch froze three minutes before midnight. What does it mean?
When I first learned about this watch (and looking at its history), I was a little scared. And no wonder: Doomsday is an extremely scary concept, and the thought that we can predict its coming makes us uncomfortable. After all, no one but Dr. Evil and the Bond villains wants to see "we are destroying our civilization with dangerous technologies of our own production," says Bulletin. Last January, the clock moved from five to three at midnight. And they are still there. This is bad.
But how bad is it? Whenever the Doomsday clock is set, people roll their eyes, because nothing can be measured with this clock. In the real world, clocks keep track of time, but these do not. The various threats that worry the Clock - nuclear war, climate change - occur in completely different time frames. If the unbalanced leader of a nuclear power wakes up and gets up on the wrong foot, a nuclear war could break out in a couple of hours. But for the Arctic ice to melt, the climate will take a hundred years, or even more. So a "one minute" on such a watch can represent anything from a day to a hundred hours.
This watch measures anxiety - the degree to which Bulletin Science and Safety Council members are concerned about the state of the world. Every year, a dozen physicists, climatologists and policy experts come together to decide whether to move the clock, and if so, in which direction and how far. When you ask John Mecklin, editor of Bulletin, how they come to this, he will say: "We do not disclose the exact details because this is the policy."
But he will add that no, it’s not like that if people gathered in a room and were like, “Hey, are you worried? I am worrying a lot. Today I worry a whole minute more than last year. " “Yeah, but I’m not. I'm still three minutes away."
On the other hand, says Mecklin, “we don't get a numerical answer by doing some calculations. We rely on the best judgment of leading experts who know the situation in full detail. These experts talk among themselves, but also consult with other experts. There are at least sixteen Nobel laureates among them, although many of them do not carry out specific expertise (in any case, they are very smart)."
What does “we destroy civilization” mean? Is this an exaggeration? Not at all, says Mecklin. There is good reason to believe that a massive thermonuclear war will throw enough particulate matter into the atmosphere to plunge the planet into a cold, dark nuclear winter. Deprived of light, plants will begin to die en masse, leading to rupture of the food chain and hunger for all of us. “Some studies suggest that 50-100 bombs will be enough, and there are thousands of them in storage around the world,” Mecklin says. "It would be a mistake to believe that thermonuclear war of any size does not threaten our civilization."
Promotional video:
Well, it turns out that the Science and Security Council has decided that we are closer than ever to an all-out nuclear war? You might think the Iranian nuclear deal has pushed us further from the abyss, and Kim Jong-un's pampering with hydrogen bombs should not be taken lightly. But we didn’t cut the number of warheads much, rather the opposite. If nuclear weapons did not exist at all, this would certainly not have relieved us of all our worries. Since we have no idea in what conditions it will be used, and to what extent, it is difficult for me to believe that we are in greater danger today than during the Cold War, for example. But if you check history, you find that there has never been a single exchange of nuclear strikes, let alone a war.
On climate change, talks were held in Paris last month that are considered an important step forward in curbing greenhouse gases. However, only promises were made in Paris, so people with the Clock watch and wait. Mecklin says there is some uncertainty about how and when the movement will start. "But even if we take the worst option, we risk facing droughts, mass migration of people fleeing the climate, hunger, etc." It is no exaggeration to say that our civilization will change. Not that it was destroyed, but it cannot be dropped from the scales either.
And yet, all the metaphoricity of the Clock raises questions for me. They don't measure anything. When the Clock was created, the minute hand was set at seven minutes to midnight. The choice of this point was not even remotely scientific. According to Martil Langsdorff, who created them in 1947, the reason was "she thought they looked good." And it's not a joke. "Simple."
Not only was this decision unscientific, it also baffled future watchmakers. We can move the minute hand back as much as we like, but there are only three minutes ahead and there is no room for maneuver if things get worse - and it will. If the clock is moved forward two minutes next year, will there be one minute left? Will they start counting down in seconds? We'll have to redo everything.
In any case, Mecklin will forgive you if you mistakenly think that the Doomsday clock is more than an excuse to remind scientists what dangerous technologies they create. “I understand the urge to do actual calculations,” he says.
However, thank you for at least someone who thinks that our world is done without three minutes.