The Doomsday Clock is a powerful symbol with great cultural resonance. Let's take a look at its history, some of the issues it faced, and how it came to be set at 90 seconds to midnight.
I'm sorry to say that I've come to the conclusion that the Bulletin project, as well intended as it is, has fallen behind the times. 75 years after Hiroshima there isn't any compelling evidence that the longstanding activist pattern of providing information, reasoned expert analysis, and the chanting of slogans etc is ever going to deliver us from the nuclear weapons era. The entire nuclear weapons community (including my blog) seems to be doing the same things over and over while expecting different results, Einstein's definition of insanity.
My guess is that nothing meaningful will happen with nuclear weapons until after the next detonation. But that could be wrong, so we should keep trying, but not trying the same old things over and over.
What I've suggested to the Bulletin and all scientists is that they shift from making wonderful statements to applying leverage. More on that here:
Yea, agreed, resignation is a big factor in the culture of nuclear weapons denial. We could argue that the denial arises from decades of failure, and that the decades of failure arises from doing the same things over and over, and not being willing to just admit that what we're doing isn't working.
Another factor that we see at the Bulletin and elsewhere is that the nuclear weapons status quo is led by experts, people do nuclear weapons work for a living. It's hard for experts in any field to publicly admit that what they're doing hasn't worked, and is not likely to work, because doing so would threaten their expert status, and thus their livelihood.
I've been trying to think outside the box as best I can, and have come to the point of concluding it's not really nuclear weapons which are the real problem, but those who would use them. Thus the world peace section of my blog.
You know, if nuclear weapons magically vanished people like Putin would just turn their attention to other means of mass horror, which an accelerating knowledge explosion will be happy to hand them. We should still try to get rid of nuclear weapons, but success won't bring us the peace we seek.
I'm sorry to say that I've come to the conclusion that the Bulletin project, as well intended as it is, has fallen behind the times. 75 years after Hiroshima there isn't any compelling evidence that the longstanding activist pattern of providing information, reasoned expert analysis, and the chanting of slogans etc is ever going to deliver us from the nuclear weapons era. The entire nuclear weapons community (including my blog) seems to be doing the same things over and over while expecting different results, Einstein's definition of insanity.
My guess is that nothing meaningful will happen with nuclear weapons until after the next detonation. But that could be wrong, so we should keep trying, but not trying the same old things over and over.
What I've suggested to the Bulletin and all scientists is that they shift from making wonderful statements to applying leverage. More on that here:
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/nukes-what-new-can-scientists-do
Agree. There's also the problem of resignation: "Well, 90 seconds, not much left to do anyway".
But it was not like that in the past. What changed? (one thing that changed for the worst is the media)
Yea, agreed, resignation is a big factor in the culture of nuclear weapons denial. We could argue that the denial arises from decades of failure, and that the decades of failure arises from doing the same things over and over, and not being willing to just admit that what we're doing isn't working.
Another factor that we see at the Bulletin and elsewhere is that the nuclear weapons status quo is led by experts, people do nuclear weapons work for a living. It's hard for experts in any field to publicly admit that what they're doing hasn't worked, and is not likely to work, because doing so would threaten their expert status, and thus their livelihood.
I've been trying to think outside the box as best I can, and have come to the point of concluding it's not really nuclear weapons which are the real problem, but those who would use them. Thus the world peace section of my blog.
You know, if nuclear weapons magically vanished people like Putin would just turn their attention to other means of mass horror, which an accelerating knowledge explosion will be happy to hand them. We should still try to get rid of nuclear weapons, but success won't bring us the peace we seek.