Special Edition Spring 2024: Tick tock goes the Doomsday Clock
What is the Doomsday Clock, and can it help predict world catastrophes?
By M Yeager
Every January, media outlets across the globe publish articles or air segments that talk about the Doomsday Clock’s newest time. The Doomsday Clock is a symbol belonging to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that represents the likelihood of how close the world is to a human-made global catastrophe. The closer that the clock is to midnight, the closer the world is to disaster. In 2024, the Bulletin decided to keep the clock’s time at 9o seconds to midnight — holding steady from last year — signifying the urgency of the world’s current state of affairs.
History of the Doomsday Clock
The Doomsday Clock was created in 1947 for the cover of the June edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by artist Martyl Langsdorf, the wife of a scientist involved in the Manhattan Project. Langsdorf chose to use the image of a clock to show the sense of urgency in terms of controlling atomic weapons.
The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board, which is made up of experts in nuclear and climate science, determines if and where the hands of the clock are moved. The four main determinants of the clock’s time are nuclear risk, climate change, disruptive technologies (such as AI) and biosecurity (such as pandemics and bioterrorism).
Determinants of the clock’s setting
Since its conception, the hands of the clock have moved 25 times: backward eight times and forward 17 times. The furthest the clock has been from midnight is 17 minutes in 1991 after the United States and Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The closest that the clock has been to midnight is 90 seconds when it was changed in 2023 and has stayed there due to the growing reliance on nuclear weapons, worsening climate conditions and evolving sophistication of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.
Previous critiques
In the nearly eight decades since the introduction of the Doomsday Clock, there have been many critiques of its usefulness. Many skeptics point out the subjective nature of the clock’s time and the lack of transparency concerning the criteria that determine the setting. “[T]he specific criteria and calculations used to arrive at the particular time on the clock remain wholly shrouded in mystery,” states an article in The Oxford Student.
Other critiques revolve around the lack of solutions offered to turn the clock back and the reduction of global threats to minutes and seconds, which lacks the inherent nuance that these issues have. Despite the Bulletin’s intentions, the clock has not been a useful tool to drive change and many argue for its retirement.
“It’s time to stop the clock and start listening to the science that’s supposed to inform it,” says Alex Barasch, a writer for Slate.
Student opinions
General knowledge of things like the Doomsday Clock within the St. Kate’s community is common, with the idea of a countdown to the apocalypse being ingrained into the cultural zeitgeist.
“I think I've heard of different versions of it,” said Nayomi Her ‘24 (Economics/Public Policy, Critical Studies in Race and Ethnicity minor), “I don’t think that it is a completely abstract idea to me.”
When asked if the setting of the clock at 90 seconds to midnight seemed accurate, Her noted that it did, but it could be even closer in order to bring greater attention to the state of the world.
Another student echoes Her’s sentiment. “I think it’s accurate in the grand scheme of Earth,” said Kathryn Feil ‘25 (Theology, Japanese minor).
While many critics dislike the Doomsday Clock for its simplified nature and argue for its retirement, Feil and Her note the utility that it has for the wider public.
“It’s a way to see how close we are to being killed by our own doing,” Feil said. “We can see our human-caused catastrophe happening before our eyes if we just look around and the clock is the fastest way to show us that we do have a finish line.”
“I don’t think we should have a complete reliance on it, but it is a way to make it [the threat of global catastrophe] easier to understand,” Her said.
While Her agrees with the clock’s potential utility, she also agrees with critics regarding the lack of knowledge behind the methods of the Bulletin.
“I think if it was more well-known it might bring more urgency,” Her said, “but I feel that if you don’t know all the knowledge behind it, people will just make rash decisions.”
What should the global community do in response to the Doomsday Clock and its proximity to midnight? Her argues for more accountability from world leaders: “They should be more willing to work on compromises that are equitable and realistic rather than just throwing words and goals out without committing to it.”
Reactions to the Doomsday Clock are varied. Some see it as a useful tool to warn the global community about how close we are to human-caused global catastrophe and to encourage steps to prevent that. Others argue that its subjective nature, the unknown specifics of how the Bulletin determines the time and the lack of suggested solutions render it useless. Regardless of how accurate the Doomsday Clock is, the metaphor behind it is increasingly important in a world where global catastrophe could be lurking around the corner.
