Explained: How imminent is catastrophe as the Doomsday clock reaches 90 seconds to midnight?

Every year, a group of experts in nuclear, climate, and technology fields convene to decide the placement of the Doomsday Clock’s hands. The Doomsday Clock, presented by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, symbolizes how close humanity is to a catastrophic event. It quantifies our collective danger in minutes and seconds to midnight, with the goal of avoiding the striking of 12. In 2023, the expert panel moved the clock to its closest position ever: 90 seconds to midnight. On January 23, 2024, the Doomsday Clock was once again revealed, indicating that the hands remain in the same precarious position.

No change may bring relief. But it also points to the constant danger of disaster. The question is, how close are we to disaster? And if so, why?

Destroyer of the world

The invention of the atomic bomb in 1945 ushered in a new era: for the first time, humanity had the ability to kill itself.

Later that year, Albert Einstein, along with J. Robert Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists, founded the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, hoping to inform the public about the new nuclear age and its threat.

Two years later, the Bulletin published its first magazine. And on the cover: a clock with its minute hand eerily down just seven minutes past midnight.

Artist Martyl Langsdorf tried to convey the sense of urgency she had felt from the scientists working on the bomb, including her physicist husband Alexander. The placement was an aesthetic choice for him: “It seemed to be the right time on the page … it suited my eye.”

After that, Bulletin editor Eugene Rabinowitch was the cogs behind the clocks until he died in 1973, when a board of experts took over.

The clock has since been moved 25 times, particularly in response to the rise of the Cold War military, technological developments and geopolitical dynamics.

The nuclear risk did not decrease after the collapse of the Soviet Union, even though the total number of nuclear weapons was reduced. And new threats have emerged that pose a catastrophic risk to humanity. The most recent setting of the watch attempts to measure this level of risk.

Uncertain world

In the words of Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the Bulletin: Make no mistake: Resetting the clock to 90 seconds to midnight is not a sign that the world is stable. Vice versa.

The Bulletin cited four key sources of risk: nuclear weapons, climate change, biological threats and the development of artificial intelligence.

Two ongoing conflicts – Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Palestine – involve nuclear weapon states. Long-term safeguards for nuclear stability, such as the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia, are unlikely to work. North Korea and Iran maintain their nuclear ambitions. And China is rapidly growing and modernizing its nuclear arsenal.

The effects of climate change are getting worse as the world suffers its hottest years on record. Six of the nine planetary boundaries are beyond their safe level. And we’re likely to fall short of the Paris climate agreement’s goal of keeping the temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial times. Dramatic climate disruptions are a real possibility.

The COVID pandemic revealed the global implications of a biological threat. Engineered pandemics created using synthetic biotechnology (and perhaps soon AI tools) can be more viral and deadly than any natural disease. Add to the challenge the continued presence of biological weapons programs around the world and the changing risk of disease due to the effects of climate change, and biothreats are a regular battleground for many countries.

Finally, the Bulletin acknowledged the risk associated with advances in artificial intelligence. Although some AI experts have proposed that AI itself is an existential threat, AI is also a multiplier of the threat of nuclear or biological weapons. And AI can be a multiplier of vulnerability. AI-powered disinformation may make it difficult for democracies to function, especially as they deal with other catastrophic threats.

Subjective and imprecise, but does it matter?

The doomsday clock has its adversaries. Critics argue that setting the clock is based on subjective judgments, not a quantitative or transparent methodology. Also, it’s not an exact measurement. What does “90 seconds to midnight” actually mean?

With the clock now set to an all-time high, it naturally calls into question why we are at greater risk than we were during, say, the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would it take to be closer than 90 seconds to midnight?

In essence, these criticisms are correct. And there are many ways to improve the watch technically. The release should take them into account. But the critics see it too.

Doomsday clock is not a risk assessment. It’s a figure of speech. It’s a symbol. It is, for lack of a better term, atmosphere.

A powerful image of dark threats

Right from the start, when seven minutes to midnight “fits the eye”, Doomsday Clock was emotional and viscerally responsive to the core moment. That is why it has become a powerful image that catches the eyes of the world every year.

Global catastrophic threats are murky, complex, and overwhelming. With only four points and two hands, the Doomsday Clock captures a sense of urgency like few images can.

There are better and more efficient ways to assess risks. For example, a few countries carry out national risk assessments. These are formal and regular processes in which governments assess multiple threats to a country, prioritize them quantitatively, and develop counter-plans for the greatest vector of risk. More countries should do these assessments and remember to catalog global disaster threats.

Or see the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risk Report. Based on a survey of around 1,500 experts from academia, business, government and civil society, it describes the biggest perceived threats over the next two to ten years. Following a similar method, the United Nations is currently conducting its own global risk study.

The doomsday clock is no substitute for efforts to understand and assess the greatest threats we face. If anything, it should inspire them.