[HN Gopher] Who sets the Doomsday Clock?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Who sets the Doomsday Clock?
        
       Author : littlexsparkee
       Score  : 12 points
       Date   : 2026-01-28 19:48 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.popularmechanics.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.popularmechanics.com)
        
       | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
       | > He believes that the erosion of shared reality is a greater
       | danger than putting AI in control of nuclear weapons.
       | 
       | Likely the hype of the doomsday clock contributes to that
       | erosion.
        
       | bm3719 wrote:
       | It's set by people for whom the clock serves as a mechanism to
       | garner alarmist attention whenever they feel short of it. In so
       | doing, they diminish not just themselves, but science as a whole.
       | 
       | At best, the clock is indeed a measuring device; one not of our
       | peril, but of the anxieties of a group of otherwise non-notables.
       | In that sense, it figures that it'd say we're closer to "doom"
       | than during the Cuban missile crisis, because that's the
       | intensity of current vibes, particularly if you're a modern
       | activist plugged into the techno-socious of reactionary
       | negativism.
        
       | anakaine wrote:
       | The Doomsday Clock has been set so consistently high as to be
       | completely meaningless as a benchmark.
        
         | ksherlock wrote:
         | Too true. They need to do an emacs^1 and switch from a 24-hour
         | clock to a 2 minute egg timer.
         | 
         | 1. emacs version 30.2 is actually 1.30.2 but the 1. will never
         | change so it was dropped 40 years ago.
        
         | unethical_ban wrote:
         | According to Iron Maiden, it used to be at two minutes, now
         | it's at 85 seconds.
        
       | Night_Thastus wrote:
       | I've always felt the idea was interesting, but the execution was
       | silly. There are real, systematic problems - both specific to
       | major countries and those that are common to nearly all.
       | 
       | But while they are very concerning, none of them I would say are
       | an _immediate_ , _existential_ threat. Nuclear threat during the
       | cold war was very real. International tensions were high and one
       | mistake could have meant the death of countless millions.
       | 
       | What we see today is nothing like that. Is there vast inequality?
       | Yes. Are there systems with terrible rewards? Corruption?
       | Environmental concerns? Yes, yes, yes.
       | 
       | But none of those are apocalyptic in the way that I feel the
       | Doomsday clock is meant to represent.
       | 
       | IMO they've used it so often for the wrong thing, that now it's
       | watered down to the point of being meaningless.
        
         | spencerflem wrote:
         | Those conditions lead to conflict which lead to nuclear war.
         | 
         | I'm convinced it will happen in my lifetime and nothing in the
         | last 5 years has made me feel like we're moving in the
         | direction of peace and international collaboration
        
           | bluGill wrote:
           | People have been saying that longer than you have been alive.
        
         | orwin wrote:
         | The environmental concern might lead to massive migrations
         | hinder and diseases.
        
       | seanicus wrote:
       | The Doomsday Clock really strains credulity; I'd love to see a
       | case for how we're closer to (as defined in this article) total
       | nuclear annihilation or even a limited exchange than we were at
       | any point in the cold war. The case is not convincingly made by
       | any of the subjects in the article.
       | 
       | Nuclear proliferation is still something to be taken with deadly
       | seriousness but the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences needs to cut the
       | hyperbole and present their case more convincingly.
        
         | kbelder wrote:
         | Absolutely true. I could certainly see an argument that we're
         | closer now than 10 or 20 years ago. But closer than 1980? 1970?
         | It's ludicrous to think so. It makes itself a measure that is
         | obviously untrustworthy.
        
       | dosinga wrote:
       | I have looked but I can't find out if it actually means
       | something. Does 89 seconds before midnight mean we have a 50%
       | chance to survive the next N years somehow?
        
       | Stevvo wrote:
       | So it's set by scientists. But the article fails to mention it's
       | an art project. The clock itself being an art piece, and the
       | setting of it a performance.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-28 23:01 UTC)