S3|SS20: Apocalypse (90 Symbolic Seconds From) Now
Dance Jam:
We could cry a little, cry a lot. Don't stop dancing, don't dare stop. We'll cry later, or cry now. You know it's heartbreak. We could dance the tears away, emancipate ourselves. We'll cry later, or cry now but baby. Heartbreak feels so good (No, oh, no). Heartbreak feels so good (No, oh, no, oh) - Heartbreak Feels So Good, Fall Out Boy
Intro
This week, we’re diving into the complexities of the world's most recognized symbol of existential threat: the doomsday clock. That’s right, the metaphorical clock that slowly marks our advancement toward certain doom due to humanity’s constant thirst for better and more efficient methods to completely wipe ourselves out.
Okay, that may be a little melodramatic. But it is true! The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic representation of how close we are to a global catastrophe, and it is updated annually by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to account for the ever-changing environment in the world we all live in… probably more tenuously than we’d care to admit. In this episode, we’re going to talk about the history of the Doomsday clock, some key moments in its history, and the reasoning behind the latest update and what it means for the future.
Oh, right, in case you weren’t paying attention: last month, the clock was set to read 90 seconds to midnight - with midnight being the destruction of the planet. This is the closest it has ever been to midnight, and there are some good reasons behind it. (Benedict, 2023)
But don’t worry! It’s (probably) not the last podcast you’ll ever listen to; we have literally tens of seconds left before the apocalypse! So let’s get to it.
Explanation of the Doomsday Clock
As we hinted at in the intro, the Doomsday Clock is a symbolic representation of how close humanity is to global catastrophe. It is meant to quickly and broadly inform the general population about how close we all are to destroying the world with the technology we’ve created. (Benedict, 2023)
The Doomsday Clock comes from the minds of people who would know about such things as doomsday: It was created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a non-profit organization founded by former Manhattan Project scientists who had helped develop the first atomic bombs.
Bulletin co-editor Hyman Goldsmith has asked artist Martyl Langsdorf to come up with a design for the June 1947 edition of the Bulletin (incidentally, this was the first issue of the Bulletin that was actually a magazine and not a newspaper). Martyl was married to physicist Alexander Langsdorf, who had worked on the Manhattan Project while at the University of Chicago. As such, she was witness to many urgent, passionate debates about the consequences of the atomic bomb, the scientists’ responsibility to the public, and what they should do. This urgency is what inspired the symbol of the clock, implying that we didn’t have that much time remaining to get atomic weapons under control. (Benedict, 2023)
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists itself was founded in 1945 as a reaction to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was founded by a group of scientists and engineers who had worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II who saw an immediate need for public reckoning in the aftermath of the bombings. They were deeply concerned about the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, and wanted to use their scientific expertise to inform the public and policy makers about the risks and consequences of this new technology. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2023)
These scientists felt that the atomic bomb was only one of many threats that modern science would introduce to humanity. From the perspective of the Bulletin, they were correct. They perceive not just atomic bombs as an existential threat, but also greenhouse gasses, cyber attacks, misuse of genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence. Which… when I think about it, I have a hard time disputing. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2023)
In its early days, Bulletin Editor Eugene Rabinowitch decided whether or not the hands on the clock should be moved. Rabinowitch, a scientist and disarmament leader, was in constant communication with scientists and experts from all over the world, and based on these discussions, he would determine where the clock's hand should be set. He would then explain his reasoning in the pages of the Bulletin. (Benedict, 2023)
When Rabinowitch passed away in 1973, the responsibility of resetting the clock was passed on to the Bulletin's Science and Security Board. Much like the original scientists behind the Clock’s development, the Board consists of scientists and experts who have a deep understanding of nuclear technology and climate science; they are the kind of people who can honestly put “advised governments and international agencies about my area of expertise” on their resume. They meet twice a year to discuss world events and adjust the clock as needed. They also consult with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which contains some serious talent itself (as in: there are 13 Nobel Laureates on the Board of Sponsors). (Benedict, 2023)
It goes without saying, but we’re going to stress it again: the Science and Security Board brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to the table, so you can probably rest assured that they have helped to ensure that the Doomsday Clock remains an accurate representation of the world's proximity to catastrophe.
Which… come to think of it, isn’t really a great thing one would want to “rest assured” about… but if you can’t trust your doomsday prophets, who can you trust, dang it?
But many don’t trust the board. Given the mission behind their founding, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists naturally has a long history of advocacy and activism, and has been at the forefront of efforts to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and other existential threats. Equally as naturally, because of this advocacy and activism, the Bulletin and the Doomsday Clock periodically comes under fire for being a political tool for Democrats or Republicans, depending on who is in power and being criticized for what. However, keeping the human species you know… not extinct… isn’t an explicitly political agenda (unless your political party is trying to destroy humanity, in which case you may have an argument). The hands on the Doomsday Clock have moved 25 times since 1947, and they’ve moved farther away from midnight almost as often as they’ve moved closer, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The hands are moved based on the threats humanity faces and what we’re doing to address those threats. In fact, they moved farthest from midnight in 1991 when George HW Bush’s administration signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Soviet Union. (Benedict, 2023)
Key moments in the clock's history
In fact, aside from the establishment of the Doomsday Clock itself, this probably stands as one of the most important moments in the clock’s history. Moving the hands to 17 minutes to midnight was the result of several key developments, including the end of the Cold War and the signing of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Not to understate things, but the end of the Cold War marked a major shift in global politics, as the long-standing tensions between the two superpowers began to… “ease.” The signing of START marked the first agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce their nuclear arsenals, and was seen as a major step towards reducing the threat of a nuclear war. Both the US and the USSR, and then Russia agreed to significantly reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed. Even when the USSR broke apart, the four nuclear-capable successor states (Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kzakhstan) signed the Lisbon Protocol, which made all five nations (including the US) party to the START agreement. These developments led the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move the Doomsday Clock's hands back from 15 minutes to midnight to 17 minutes to midnight, reflecting a reduction in the threat of global catastrophe. (Arms Control Association, 2022)
The original design for the doomsday clock only showed the last quarter hour of an analogue clock face (so the portion visible from the 9 to the 12). Moving the clock to 17 minutes to midnight was a deliberate choice that moved the hands out of the viewable portion of the original clock design for the Doomsday Clock. This move was symbolic of the incredible sense of relief many felt after enduring 45 years without a nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2023)
However, setting the clock to 17 minutes to midnight didn’t last. 3 years later, the clock slowly began ticking towards midnight again. Since 1991, the only year that the hands moved away from midnight was in 2010, when the Obama administration worked with Russia and China to address global threats; Russia to begin a further reduction in nuclear arsenals, and China to address carbon emissions. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted that other challenges, such as consolidating and securing military and civilian nuclear material, further reduction of nuclear arsenals, the threat of nuclear terrorism, adopting and fulfilling climate change agreements to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, reducing dependence on coal, and investing in renewable energy needed to be addressed for more significant movement in the hand. (The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2010)
Unfortunately, since 2010, the clock has consistently edged closer and closer to midnight, bringing us to the present and 90 seconds to midnight.
Factors that Contribute to the Clock's Setting
So what goes into the time we see displayed on the clock? Is it just a gut feeling from these scientists? Well, not exactly. They consider several factors, including nuclear weapons, climate change, cyber threats, artificial intelligence, and biological threats.
Obviously, nuclear weapons have been a major factor in the setting of the Doomsday Clock since its creation in 1947. Remember, the clock was originally established in response to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Accordingly, the continued development of nuclear weapons has been a primary driver of the clock's time in the decades since. The clock's hands have been set closer to midnight during periods of heightened tensions and conflict between nuclear-armed states. Today, the continued possession of nuclear weapons by multiple countries, combined with ongoing tensions and the threat of nuclear terrorism, remains a major factor in the setting of the clock. (Mecklin, 2023)
If nuclear destruction is like a bullet to humanity’s collective head, then global warming is cancer. Slower, harder to see for most, and every bit as deadly, the accelerating pace of global warming and its potential impacts on the planet, including rising sea levels, increased frequency of natural disasters, and the loss of biodiversity, pose a significant threat to human civilization. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has increasingly focused on the threat of climate change in recent years. At times, the clock's hands have been set further from midnight as a result of increasing awareness and action on the issue. (The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2010)
Coming off the heels of Covid, it should come as no surprise that biological threats, including pandemics and bioterrorism, play a role in the setting of the Doomsday Clock. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the potential impact of infectious diseases on global health and security. The rapid spread of COVID-19, coupled with the lack of preparedness and response in many countries, underscored the importance of preparedness and resilience in the face of emerging biological threats. And that happened without any human hand guiding its deployment. Bioterrorism, or the use of biological weapons to cause harm, is another major concern. The ease of access to information and technology, combined with the growing capabilities of malicious actors, creates a significant risk of bioterrorism. Because of these factors, the clock's hands have been set closer to midnight in response to the growing threat posed by bioterrorism and the need for greater action to address the issue. (Gathany, 2023; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, n.d.)
Those feel pretty obvious, honestly. But people may be surprised to learn that cyber threats are included, as well. That’s because cyber threats are more than just people trying to steal your dear ol’ granny’s credit card information with poorly designed phishing emails. These threats include the potential for cyberattacks on critical infrastructure (like gas pipelines and power grids) and the spread of disinformation (do we really need to provide an example for the dangers that disinformation presents to our society?). The increasing dependence of society on digital technology, combined with the growing capabilities of malicious actors, creates a significant risk to global security and stability. The clock's hands have been set closer to midnight in recent years to reflect the growing threat posed by cyber attacks and the need for greater action to address the issue. (Miller, 2022; Hooper, 2022)
In a similar vein, the development of advanced artificial intelligence technologies has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of society, but also creates new security risks, such as the spread of autonomous weapons and the loss of control over AI systems. (Speaking of AI, here’s a fun fact: we’re writing this episode with the help of ChatGPT. Neat, huh? Don’t worry, we’re still researching everything.) The Bulletin considers the potential impact of AI on global security and stability, and will likely adjust the hands accordingly in upcoming updates. (Goudarzi & Gaulkin, 2022; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, n.d.)
Current Status of the Clock
In their statement explaining why the timekeepers decided to move the clock forward, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists placed a heavy emphasis on the current war in Ukraine. This conflict has called into question security arrangements and agreements that have been in place since the end of WWII. And, the way Russia is handling the conflict is changing the way sovereign states interact, and chipping away at the norms of international conduct that make successful response to global risk possible.
In addition to this diplomatic instability, the statement explains that nuclear tensions, impact on climate change, potential biological threats, and the use of disruptive technology within the scope of that conflict led the decision-making process.
But, The Bulletin also noted in its various explanations of each risk factor that there are broader global considerations in each area that add to the concern enough to move those hands.
So, let's take a look at each area of concern and break down why there's enough mounting concern to move us closer to doomsday.
Let's start with everyone's favorite candidate for the apocalypse, and the leading factor in this current move - Nuclear Tensions!
I think by now we are all far too familiar with the idea of global destruction by means of nuclear war. From the Cold War scares and fallout bunkers of the 1960s, to the 90’s comedies and dystopias we made about them, to the international conflicts prosecuted in the name of oversight in the 2000’s, the threat of nuclear conflict is an ever-present undercurrent in our societal dialogue.
And, Russia’s not-so-subtle hints that they’ve got the nukes and they’re not afraid to use them as part of their invasion of Ukraine have brought the concept back to the forefront of many people’s minds. In August, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the world has entered “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.”
Putin’s attitude in this conflict goes against almost 30 years of commitments by Moscow. In 1994, Russia joined the United States and United Kingdom in Budapest to declare that it would "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" and "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine..." Here’s the kicker, though: these assurances were made explicitly on the understanding that Ukraine would relinquish nuclear weapons on its soil and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty… which it did. Now, Russia has broken that promise AND hinted at its willingness to use nuclear weapons to advance or protect its efforts.
They’ve also violated international protocols and risked widespread disaster by bringing armed conflict directly to the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia (zah-POH-reezha) nuclear reactor sites, and not allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to secure the sites against, you know, catastrophe.
Oh, and we should also mention that the last remaining nuclear weapons treaty between Russia and the United States, New START, is in a bit of a precarious position. The treaty went into effect in February 2011, and limits the number of intercontinental-range nuclear weapons that Russia and the U.S. are allowed to deploy at any given time (we’ll spare you the actual types and quantities). Both the U.S. and Russia have met and maintained the central limits of the treaty since 2018, and both agreed to extend the treaty through February 2026. However, the shift in attitude and action from Russia calls continued compliance into question. I mean, at this point, how can we be sure they won’t just scrap the whole plan? (New START Treaty - United States Department of State, n.d.)
Now, just because Russia’s over here showing out doesn’t mean that the rest of the world gets a pass on their bad nuclear behavior this year… (2023 Doomsday Clock Statement: Nuclear Risk, 2023)
China has undertaken a “considerable expansion” of its nuclear capabilities in the last several years, which is particularly troubling given its consistent refusal to consider any sort of outside measures seeking transparency about their nuclear program, or oversight, or even just any sort of predictability. The US Defense Department estimates that China’s nuclear arsenal could increase fivefold by 2035, standing toe-to-toe with the nuclear capabilities of the United States and Russia.
Iran continues to increase its uranium enrichment capacity. Though it’s operating under some international safeguards, it’s still outside the confines of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that once governed the process. This effort positions Iran closer to a nuclear weapons capability, should it decide to cross that threshold. Plus, instability in Iran and Tehran’s support for Russia's war against Ukraine are highly likely to complicate successful negotiations to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
India continues to modernize its 160-warhead nuclear arsenal, with new delivery systems under development to complement or even replace existing nuclear-capable aircraft, land-based delivery systems, and sea-based systems. Pakistan also has an arsenal of similar size and continues to expand its warheads, delivery systems, and materials production efforts.
And we’re not innocent in this one, either. The U.S. is also pursuing full-fledged nuclear weapons modernization programs, which is helping set the stage for a dangerous new “third nuclear age” of competition.
Cool, cool… That’s not nervous making at all. Maybe we move on to an only slightly less alarming factor in the clock shift: Climate Change. (2023 Doomsday Clock Statement: Climate Change, 2023)
Ok, so we’ve got to go back to the war in Ukraine to kick this one off, too. This conflict has had a pretty significant effect on global efforts to combat climate change as countries dependent on Russian oil and natural gas have had to diversify their supplies and suppliers, which has lead to expanded investment in finding and producing these not-so climate-friendly resources.
Russia is second to the United States in global production of both natural gas and oil. When they invaded Ukraine and the stability and accessibility of their goods became non-existent, it sparked a rush to establish independence from Russian energy supplies, particularly in the European Union. This has led to larger investments in natural gas production and export infrastructure in the United States, the EU, Africa, and a host of other places, largely financed by major oil and gas players. So, while public resources for fossil fuel development are waning thanks to social and scientific pressure, maybe a little common sense, and - dare we hope - some modicum of self-preservation, private capital continues to flow into the industry.
And then there’s the issue of carbon emissions. At the peak of the pandemic, widespread COVID measures significantly dropped carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. But, because we are who we are, we’ve hit that rebound hard and emissions have reached a record high in 2022. This accelerated the ongoing increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and all the bad things that come along with - like batshit crazy weather that is directly attributable to climate change.
For example: Countries in West Africa experienced some of the deadliest floods in their histories due to a rainfall event that was assessed to be 80 times more likely because of climate change. Extreme summer temperatures in Central Europe, North America, China, and other regions of the Northern Hemisphere led to water shortages and soil drought conditions, which caused poor harvests and further threatened food security at a time when the Ukraine conflict has already caused major increases in food prices.
Perhaps the most striking demonstration of climate volatility happened in Pakistan, where intense floods caused by a “monsoon on steroids” deluged a third of the country. The flooding was described as the worst in the country’s history, affecting 33 million people directly and destroying infrastructure, homes, and livestock. The floods also caused major crop failure, an epidemic of waterborne diseases.
Okay.. maybe not less scary. I guess now’s as good a time as any to talk about Biological Threats then…? (Gathany, 2023)
Listen, I’m not even going to pretend that this part of the reporting wasn’t super creepy. As a person who read Outbreak at age 10, was thoroughly convinced that I had Ebola more than once that summer (thanks Robin Cook), and then panicked when the first case of Ebola made its way to the U.S. this is kind of a touchy subject for me. But the reality is that infectious disease outbreaks are on the rise.
Both the total number and the diversity of infectious disease outbreaks has increased significantly since 1980, and more than half of those were caused by zoonotic diseases - those that originate in animals and are transmitted to humans. The more people there are, the more we encroach on animal habitats and increase our exposure to diseases we wouldn’t ever encounter otherwise. (Bangert, 2022) And, we’re not very good at predicting which ones are going to cause us the most trouble.
Then there are the lab accidents… No, we’re not going to open that can of worms. But the reality of human error is a major factor. We’re doing major research on dangerous viruses and bacteria with limited understanding of novel disease characteristics, often a lack of local government knowledge about the types of research occurring in labs in their jurisdictions, and sometimes even confusion about lab safety requirements. It is also easier now than it ever has been to obtain and modify pathogens, increasing the chances of pandemics caused by laboratory accidents.
Oh, and we can’t forget the intentional bad actors. “In its 2022 report, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, the US State Department assessed that: Russia maintains an offensive biological weapons program; North Korea has produced biological agents and maintains a program to weaponize them for use in warfare; Iran has not abandoned its intent to conduct research and development of biological agents for offensive uses; and China has engaged in dual-use activities that may be in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention.”
Yeah, there’s that Russia situation again… One false narrative that Russia is using to justify their invasion of Ukraine is that the U.S. is funding biological weapons research and development there. This has been repeated by Russian state actors, by Russian media, and even by podcasters in the U.S. (Popular Podcasters Spread Russian Disinformation About Ukraine Biolabs, 2022) Because of this pretense, and its potential to cause similar “retaliation” the risk that Russia will engage in biological warfare increases as conditions in Ukraine become more chaotic.
Alright. We’re almost at the end of this epic choose your own adventure dystopia. Just one more little issue to discuss and then we promise we’ll be done and tell you some good news. Let’s talk about disruptive technology.
The crux of this concern is that humanity has run amok with the internet and technology in general. Political, social, health and every other kind of disinformation abounds, and is being leveraged - even weaponized - by individuals and governments of all kinds. The Russian government, for example, has taken control of the information ecosystem in the country and has blocked dissemination of truthful information about the Ukraine war. China has adopted widespread use of surveillance technology, causing a significant concern for human rights.
They’re even causing trouble in space. Russia has launched an “inspector” satellite that reportedly tailed a high-value US government satellite in its orbit, and threatened to use an anti-satellite weapon against US Starlink satellites, arguing that they are not merely a commercial system but a military one as well. (Ukraine has made use of Starlink in its conflict with Russia.)
Essentially, layered on top of all of the other issues, this might just be too much for us to manage.
References
Arms Control Association. (2022, April). START I at a Glance. Arms Control Association. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start1
Bangert, B. (2022, September). NPR: Zoonotic diseases like COVID-19 and monkeypox will become more common, experts say. University of Cincinnati. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2022/09/npr--zoonotic-diseases-like-covid-19-and-monkeypox-will-become-more-common-experts-say.html
Benedict, K. (2023). FAQ. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved January 31, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/faq/
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (n.d.). Artificial Intelligence Archives. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/disruptive-technologies/artificial-intelligence/
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (n.d.). Biosecurity Archives. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/disruptive-technologies/biosecurity/#nav_menu
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (2023). About Us. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved January 31, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/about-us/
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (2023). Doomsday Clock Timeline. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/
Gathany, J. (2023, January 24). 2023 Doomsday Clock Statement: Biological Threats. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/biological-threats/
Goudarzi, S., & Gaulkin, T. (2022, December 22). Interview: ChatGPT has a holiday message for you all. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/interview-chatgpt-has-a-holiday-message-for-you-all/#post-heading
Hooper, C. (2022, April 20). In search of a new world order, Russia and China team up to push Ukraine propaganda. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/2022/04/in-search-of-a-new-world-order-russia-and-china-team-up-to-push-ukraine-propaganda/#post-heading
Mecklin, J. (2023, January 24). Current Time - 2023. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
Miller, A. C. (2022, December 12). How conspiratorial thinking is undermining democracy, and what we can do about it. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/how-conspiratorial-thinking-is-undermining-democracy-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/#post-heading
New START Treaty - United States Department of State. (n.d.). State Department. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://www.state.gov/new-start/
Popular podcasters spread Russian disinformation about Ukraine biolabs. (2022, March 23). Brookings. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/popular-podcasters-spread-russian-disinformation-about-ukraine-biolabs/
The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. (2010, January 14). It Is 6 Minutes to Midnight. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/files/2010%20Clock%20Statement.pdf
2023 Doomsday Clock Statement: Climate Change. (2023, January 24). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/climate-change/
2023 Doomsday Clock Statement: Disruptive Technologies. (2023, January 24). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/disruptive-technologies/
2023 Doomsday Clock Statement: Nuclear Risk. (2023, January 24). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/nuclear-risk/
