The Student Room Group

30 Seconds Closer to Doomsday (Again)

Scientists have moved the minute hand of the symbolic Doomsday Clock from three minutes to two-and-a-half minutes to midnight making it the second closest to midnight (Doomsday) it has ever been.

How likely do you think it is that an apocalypse could occur?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38760792

----
Mod update: January 2018: Note, this thread was originally started last January 2017. The scientists have now moved it another 30 secounds closer. The closest to midnight since 1953.
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

>"""scientists"""
lost me at that.
the Christian and Muslim religions both predict an apocalypse coming to a planet near you.
Original post by Carthaginian
>"""scientists"""
lost me at that.


[video="youtube;GGgiGtJk7MA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA[/video]
Original post by Fallen Star
Scientists have moved the minute hand of the symbolic Doomsday Clock from three minutes to two-and-a-half minutes to midnight making it the second closest to midnight (Doomsday) it has ever been.

How likely do you think it is that an apocalypse could occur?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38760792


Moving it closer does not exactly reassure us haha
Just shows you that 'scientists' aren't beyond petty political partisanship.
Reply 6
Avatar for Drewski
Drewski
19
Doesn't actually mean anything, though.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Reply 8
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
It's just been moved another 30 seconds closer. Now 2 minutes to midnight, the closest since 1953.

Stable genius.
Original post by Doonesbury
It's just been moved another 30 seconds closer. Now 2 minutes to midnight, the closest since 1953.

Stable genius.


How on earth do they predict this? Doesn't sounds very scientific. Sounds like a load of fear mongering.
Reply 10
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
Original post by centraltrains
How on earth do they predict this? Doesn't sounds very scientific. Sounds like a load of fear mongering.


It's not a prediction, it's indicating the world's vulnerability to catastrophe. The Board now considers the world is more vulnerable than previously.

https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement
Original post by Doonesbury
It's not a prediction, it's indicating the world's vulnerability to catastrophe. The Board now considers the world is more vulnerable than previously.

https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement


How though? I seriously don't understand it... Surely it can only be opinion based?
Reply 12
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
Original post by centraltrains
How though? I seriously don't understand it... Surely it can only be opinion based?


Yes it's opinion based. Have a read of the links :wink:
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Fallen Star
[video="youtube;GGgiGtJk7MA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA[/video]


Britain hasn't had enough of experts. Politicians, nay-sayers, homeopathic remedy pushers, religionists and those who like to clutch at straws have had enough of experts, mainly because scientists keep proving how what they are saying is utter tosh.

And Gove is one of the worst offenders.
these so-called Scientists are a bunch of moaning minnies. they can stick their stupid clock where the so-called centre of the solar system don't shine.
Original post by centraltrains
How on earth do they predict this? Doesn't sounds very scientific. Sounds like a load of fear mongering.


It's not a prediction. It's a representation of how stable the world is and the likelihood of catastrophe. It was originally just regarding nuclear technology and its use but now takes climate change into account as well.

It isn't perfect (obviously), an example would be it was at 7 minutes during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Trump and Kim Jong Un have moved it 1 minute closer in 2 years, that's all, but it's been pretty much getting closer since 1991 (17 minutes).
To me, it just seems like scaremongering. When I looked at the timeline of 'how many minutes to midnight', it didn't seem like it completely correlated with the most dangerous points in the past 70 odd years.
While I can agree that there's a lot of threats out there - Russia, DPRK, PRC, terrorist groups etc, to rate the likelihood of a nuclear exchange higher now than for example the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis seems somewhat farfetched.
Reply 18
Avatar for Doones
Doones
21
Original post by Tempest II
While I can agree that there's a lot of threats out there - Russia, DPRK, PRC, terrorist groups etc, to rate the likelihood of a nuclear exchange higher now than for example the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis seems somewhat farfetched.


They don't change the clock simply according to events as they happen.

Specifically: https://thebulletin.org/remembering-cuban-missile-crisis
Original post by Tempest II
While I can agree that there's a lot of threats out there - Russia, DPRK, PRC, terrorist groups etc, to rate the likelihood of a nuclear exchange higher now than for example the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis seems somewhat farfetched.



Considering the moron currently in charge of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal its not really, especially as he has recently threatened north korea with nuclear war.At least in the cuban missile crisis both leaders were sane and rational.Here we have a religious nutjob and a guy who blew up his own uncle with an anti-aircraft gun.Hardly reassuring is it?
And besides its not just nuclear war is it?Its also climate change,overpopulation,the threat of a mass pandemic and a sixth mass extinction of life on earth.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you