Doomsday clock moved closer to midnight

It's 2012, why the he'll are we not at midnight right now!?!?!

Where the hell did these yahoos get their apocalyptic studies degree?
 
World-Ends-Tomorrow.jpg


Change that to one hundred fifteen and we've got the life story of that guy.
 
I don't know what the big deal here is, my clocks get to midnight every night without a problem.
 
I'm surprised at the level of mockery here ? These guys aren't making millions hoodwinking people , it doesn't seem ego driven , it's not done under the guise of some pseudo science .

Facts are , nukes suck . Older posters will remember cold war times when the spectre of nuclear war was a big deal ( yes , I know people will say it was all front and never going to happen . Well it definitely won't without the actual weapons) .

Now , without the Cold War the fact that there are thousands of nukes in the hands of numerous nations just doesn't seem to be a big deal . Well it is a big deal , and having these guys out there pricking our conscious from time to time IMHO can only be seen as a positive
 
I'm surprised at the level of mockery here ? These guys aren't making millions hoodwinking people , it doesn't seem ego driven , it's not done under the guise of some pseudo science.
So there really are legit scientists who sit around guessing about when they should move the clock up? Really? In that case, sign me up! :goodjob:
 
I'm surprised at the level of mockery here ? These guys aren't making millions hoodwinking people , it doesn't seem ego driven , it's not done under the guise of some pseudo science .

Facts are , nukes suck . Older posters will remember cold war times when the spectre of nuclear war was a big deal ( yes , I know people will say it was all front and never going to happen . Well it definitely won't without the actual weapons) .

Now , without the Cold War the fact that there are thousands of nukes in the hands of numerous nations just doesn't seem to be a big deal . Well it is a big deal , and having these guys out there pricking our conscious from time to time IMHO can only be seen as a positive

My major problem with this is not that there isn't good arguments to made in their favor, but that it seems rather arbitrary.

I understand the whole "clock" thing is so that people can better visualize the closeness to destruction, but at the same time there should be explanations as well as comparisons to similar situations in the past (or at the very least why the current situation is entirely unique). It just seems somewhat one-sided and more like a scare tactic rather than an attempt at discussion.

It's like spinning dinner plates. Spinning one (nuclear weapons) isn't too tough. We've mastered it. But soon available is bioterror.

In my opinion bioterrorism is not something to be overly concerned with. Most states have pretty much shut down their biological warfare programs and the remaining ones are rather small scale. Even the terrorist organizations that made serious efforts and actually had decent capabilities at certain points, like Aum Shinrikyo, mostly failed. I'm not saying it's a non-issue, just that I don't think it is something to lose any sleep over. I'd be more concerned about natural pandemics rather than human caused ones.
 
So there really are legit scientists who sit around guessing about when they should move the clock up? Really? In that case, sign me up! :goodjob:

I don't think it takes a lot of their time.

But I guess unless you're in business and you're at your job 24/7, you're always going to be a slacker who doesn't deserve his pay. Or something.
 
lol, stupid scaremongering attention whoring scientists trying to tell us to pay attention to our collective actions. Screw that, I'll do what I want! For every endangered animal you don't run over with your hummer I'm running over three! Goddamn communist hippies. I've blasting the heat to 85F just for you! Global warming, hmmff, why do we still have winter then? Morons!
 
As Slavoj Zizek says, we are very much "living in the end times". The question he poses, and a very worthy one, is what it is that actually ends- human civilisation full step, or our contemporary models of it? Perhaps not everyone will follow the thinking of a "communist in a qualified sense", but he at the very least raises some interesting points for consideration.


Link to video.
Thanks, will check that out when I'm done with the video I'm currently watching (well watching in chunks when I have time).
 
They are looking at it from the wrong perspective. If everybody has nukes there'll be no war because everybody can fight back with nukes.

Nuclear proliferation means terrorists are more likely to have one.

(If everybody has guns, no one will use them? Arms proliferation simply means there are more guns around and anyone with bad intentions will have no difficulty in obtaining them.)

I understand the whole "clock" thing is so that people can better visualize the closeness to destruction, but at the same time there should be explanations as well as explanations of similar situations in the past (or at the very least why the current situation is entirely unique).

There´s no precedence to nuclear proliferation, so there´s no ´similar situations in the past´ available. :scan:
 
But if we outlaw nukes only rogue states will have them !
 
Over here the bars close when the owner wants them to close. I have left bars at eight in the morning on some occasions.
 
My major problem with this is not that there isn't good arguments to made in their favor, but that it seems rather arbitrary.

I understand the whole "clock" thing is so that people can better visualize the closeness to destruction, but at the same time there should be explanations as well as explanations of similar situations in the past (or at the very least why the current situation is entirely unique). It just seems somewhat one-sided and more like a scare tactic rather than an attempt at discussion.

We have been close to destruction ever since the Cold War. We still can wipe out all of humanity if we want to, but there are powerful deterrents to stopping that from happening.
 
We still can wipe out all of humanity if we want to, but there are powerful deterrents to stopping that from happening.

I honestly don't think we can.
We can destroy nations and set civilization back a ouple of decades, but we don't have the capability to bring about global extinction.
 
I don't think it takes a lot of their time.

But I guess unless you're in business and you're at your job 24/7, you're always going to be a slacker who doesn't deserve his pay. Or something.
They have nothing to base their guesses off of. "Oh, I just swatted a fly! Better move that clock up another minute!"
 
The reasons are given in the OP itself. If only you could read.
 
The reasons are given in the OP itself. If only you could read.
Um, yeah saying that people are trying to find new energy doesn't mean "scientists" can predict when the world is going to end. In that case: I'm going to eat lentil soup for lunch, so we better move that clock up 7 minutes.
 
Um, yeah saying that people are trying to find new energy doesn't mean "scientists" can predict when the world is going to end. In that case: I'm going to eat lentil soup for lunch, so we better move that clock up 7 minutes.

You are of course free to start your own competing doomsday clock.
 
Back
Top Bottom