info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
It is 100 seconds to midnight - 2022 Doomsday Clock Statement
8 views
Skip to first unread message
slider
Oct 31, 2022, 11:48:27 AM10/31/22
to
To: Leaders and citizens of the world
Re: At doom’s doorstep: It is 100 seconds to midnight
Date: January 20, 2022
Last year’s leadership change in the United States provided hope that what
seemed like a global race toward catastrophe might be halted and—with
renewed US engagement—even reversed. Indeed, in 2021 the new American
administration changed US policies in some ways that made the world safer:
agreeing to an extension of the New START arms control agreement and
beginning strategic stability talks with Russia; announcing that the
United States would seek to return to the Iran nuclear deal; and rejoining
the Paris climate accord. Perhaps even more heartening was the return of
science and evidence to US policy making in general, especially regarding
the COVID-19 pandemic. A more moderate and predictable approach to
leadership and the control of one of the two largest nuclear arsenals of
the world marked a welcome change from the previous four years.
Still, the change in US leadership alone was not enough to reverse
negative international security trends that had been long in developing
and continued across the threat horizon in 2021.
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
US relations with Russia and China remain tense, with all three countries
engaged in an array of nuclear modernization and expansion
efforts—including China’s apparent large-scale program to increase its
deployment of silo-based long-range nuclear missiles; the push by Russia,
China, and the United States to develop hypersonic missiles; and the
continued testing of anti-satellite weapons by many nations. If not
restrained, these efforts could mark the start of a dangerous new nuclear
arms race. Other nuclear concerns, including North Korea’s unconstrained
nuclear and missile expansion and the (as yet) unsuccessful attempts to
revive the Iran nuclear deal contribute to growing dangers. Ukraine
remains a potential flashpoint, and Russian troop deployments to the
Ukrainian border heighten day-to-day tensions.
For many countries, a huge gap still exists between long-term greenhouse
gas-reduction pledges and the near- and medium-term emission-reduction
actions needed to achieve those goals. Although the new US
administration’s quick return to the Paris Agreement speaks the right
words, it has yet to be matched with actionable policies.
Developed countries improved their responses to the continuing COVID-19
pandemic in 2021, but the worldwide response remained entirely
insufficient. Plans for quick global distribution of vaccines essentially
collapsed, leaving poorer countries largely unvaccinated and allowing new
variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to gain an unwelcome foothold. Beyond the
pandemic, worrying biosafety and biosecurity lapses made it clear that the
international community needs to focus serious attention on management of
the global biological research enterprise. Further, the establishment and
pursuit of biological weapons programs marked the beginning of a new
biological arms race.
And while the new US administration made progress in reestablishing the
role of science and evidence in public policy, corruption of the
information ecosystem continued apace in 2021. One particularly concerning
variety of internet-based disinformation infected America last year: Waves
of internet-enabled lies persuaded a significant portion of the US public
to believe the utterly false narrative contending that Joe Biden did not
win the US presidential election in 2020. Continued efforts to foster this
narrative threaten to undermine future US elections, American democracy in
general, and, therefore, the United States’ ability to lead global efforts
to manage existential risk.
In view of this mixed threat environment—with some positive developments
counteracted by worrisome and accelerating negative trends—the members of
the Science and Security Board find the world to be no safer than it was
last year at this time and therefore decide to set the Doomsday Clock once
again at 100 seconds to midnight. This decision does not, by any means,
suggest that the international security situation has stabilized. On the
contrary, the Clock remains the closest it has ever been to
civilization-ending apocalypse because the world remains stuck in an
extremely dangerous moment. In 2019 we called it the new abnormal, and it
has unfortunately persisted.
Last year, despite laudable efforts by some leaders and the public,
negative trends in nuclear and biological weapons, climate change, and a
variety of disruptive technologies—all exacerbated by a corrupted
information ecosphere that undermines rational decision making—kept the
world within a stone’s throw of apocalypse. Global leaders and the public
are not moving with anywhere near the speed or unity needed to prevent
disaster.
Leaders around the world must immediately commit themselves to renewed
cooperation in the many ways and venues available for reducing existential
risk. Citizens of the world can and should organize to demand that their
leaders do so—and quickly. The doorstep of doom is no place to loiter.
The nuclear tightrope
During 2021, some nuclear risks declined while others rose. Upcoming
decisions on nuclear policies could generate either salutary or dangerous
modifications of an already uncertain and worrisome security situation.
The February 2021 agreement between the United States and Russia to renew
New START for five years is a decidedly positive development. This
extension creates a window of opportunity to negotiate a future arms
control agreement between the two countries that possess 90 percent of the
nuclear weapons on the planet. The United States and Russia also agreed to
start two sets of dialogues about how to best maintain “nuclear stability”
in the future: the Working Group on Principles and Objectives for Future
Arms Control and the Working Group on Capabilities and Actions with
Strategic Effects. These groups have met and in early 2022 are expected to
report on initial results of the consultations, aimed at shaping future
arms control agreements.
Another bright spot was the Biden administration's announcements that it
would seek to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
with Iran and offer to enter strategic stability talks with China.
Although no talks between North Korea and the United States took place in
2021, the North Koreans have not resumed testing of nuclear weapons or
long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). (Tests of
shorter-range missiles have continued.) Finally, when the Biden
administration began its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) process, it
announced that one specific goal would be to “reduce the role of nuclear
weapons” in US national security policy.
Other developments, however, appeared on the negative side of the ledger:
Iran continues to build an enriched uranium stockpile, insisting that all
sanctions be removed before returning to talks with the United States on
the JCPOA. The window of opportunity seems to be closing. Over time,
Iran's neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, may feel compelled to acquire
similar capabilities, foreshadowing the frightening possibility of a
Middle East with multiple countries with the expertise and material to
build nuclear weapons.
The Chinese have started to build new ICBM silos on a large scale, leading
to concerns that China may be considering a change in its nuclear
doctrine. China and Russia have both tested anti-satellite weapons
recently, increasing concerns about rapid escalation in any conventional
conflict with the United States. Efforts by all three countries to field
hypersonic missiles are beginning to yield results, intensifying
competition. While experts disagree on both the causes and the
consequences of these programs, they clearly mark the start of a new arms
competition.
The North Koreans continue to test nuclear-capable short- and medium-range
missiles, including cruise, ballistic, and glide vehicles, and there is
evidence of their restarting plutonium production. Meanwhile, there have
been no high-level negotiations between the United States and North Korea.
India and Pakistan continue to advance their nuclear, missile, and other
military capabilities with no diminution of possible flash points that
could lead to nuclear conflict.
As the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol demonstrated, no
country is immune from threats to its democracy, and in a state with
nuclear-weapons-usable material and nuclear weapons, both can be targets
for terrorists and fanatics. Notably, the insurrectionists came close to
capturing Vice President Mike Pence and the “nuclear football” that
accompanies the vice president as the backup system for nuclear launch
commands. More than 10 percent of those charged with crimes during the
January 6th insurrection were veterans or active service members. The
Pentagon has conducted a major review of extremism in the military and has
adopted new definitions of extremist activities in an attempt to reduce
this danger in the future. The seriousness of the problem is clear.
Finally, the United States is preparing a Nuclear Posture Review to guide
US strategy, policy, and deployments of nuclear weapons, but its overall
message appears not yet decided. We hope the document will assert that the
United States will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its deterrence
and defense policies, which in turn may positively affect the nuclear
weapons postures of other countries, leading, we believe, to a safer
world. Where we set the Clock next year will be influenced by what the
Nuclear Posture Review ultimately contains. Reports of congressional
interference in the process, resulting in the firing of personnel
conducting the review, suggests unwelcome politicization that could well
affect the outcome and make more rational nuclear weapons policies hard to
effect.
This past year’s climate negotiations in Glasgow marked an important
milestone in climate multilateralism: a critical first round of the
treaty’s cycle of upgrading national efforts. Countries were under
pressure to strengthen their emission-reduction pledges significantly
relative to their pledges six years ago in Paris. The results,
unfortunately, were insufficient. China and India affirmed that they would
move away from use of coal, but only gradually; they affirmed for the
first time the objective of achieving “net zero,” but only in 2060 and
2070, respectively. There was only partial progress toward defined
accounting rules to allow international markets for greenhouse gas
emissions and removals to develop. Developed countries again failed to
follow through on treaty commitments to provide necessary financial and
technological support. Overall, countries’ projections and plans for
fossil fuel production are far from adequate to achieve the global Paris
goals to limit the warming of the surface of the planet to “well below two
degrees Celsius” (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) relative to the temperature
around 1800, at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Encouragingly, several countries (as well as financial institutions and
corporations) have announced a commitment to achieve net-zero carbon
dioxide emissions for the long term—meaning by 2050 or thereabouts. These
announcements are significant, in that reaching zero aggregate carbon
dioxide emissions globally would halt the buildup of greenhouse gas
pollution in the atmosphere, which is absolutely critical to halting yet
more warming. Earnest efforts to reach these seemingly distant targets
require concerted actions in the immediate term, including a redirection
of investment away from the production and use of fossil fuel and toward
renewables and energy efficiency, massive upgrading of existing
infrastructure, and a shift in land use and agriculture practices. The
real test of the significance of these net-zero pledges will be whether
they are matched by near- and medium-term emission-reduction actions.
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, 1990-2021. Despite
declining in 2020, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remained
at 31.5 gigatonnes, which contributed to carbon dioxide reaching its
highest ever average annual concentration in the atmosphere of 412.5 parts
per million in 2020—around 50 percent higher than when the Industrial
Revolution began. In 2021, emissions increased to nearly match their 2019
peak. (Chart courtesy of IEA Global Energy Review 2021)
Last year, we noted optimistically the election of a US president who
“acknowledges climate change as a profound threat and supports
international cooperation and science-based policy,” and we’ve seen a
dramatic change in tone from the previous presidential administration.
Recognizing that “[t]he effects we are seeing of climate change are the
crisis of our generation,” Biden has indeed attempted to move forward
quickly, reentering the United States in the Paris Agreement and
announcing the United States’ updated Paris emission pledge of a 50
percent reduction by 2030. He has also signaled an attentiveness to the
connection between climate action and environmental justice, in both the
domestic and international contexts. He has committed to making climate
investments in disadvantaged communities within the United States, and at
the UN General Assembly meeting he pledged to double climate financing to
developing countries.
However, progress achievable through the US political process is highly
constrained and fragile, as any subsequent president may try to swing the
pendulum backward. The major infrastructure package passed in 2021 is less
of a “climate bill” than the Biden administration initially proposed, and
the fate of the climate goals of the “Build Back Better” bill hangs in the
balance of a starkly divided Congress. It thus is not yet clear how much
progress the United States will make in the coming year toward its
announced emissions reduction pledge and finance promise.
For over four decades the threat of climate change to “future generations”
has been ruefully noted. As warming has continued to drive up
temperatures—from an unprecedented extreme high temperature of 100 degrees
Fahrenheit in the Siberian Arctic to the record-breaking 2021 “heat dome”
over western Canada and the United States—today’s young people are
increasingly seeing themselves as the future victims. They are witnessing
human and ecosystem tragedies caused, for example, by droughts in eastern
Africa and the United States, floods in China and Europe, and wildfires
raging around the world, harbingers of yet more dire consequences as
climate change accelerates in their lifetimes.
The experience of a deepening crisis has animated protests and other civil
society expressions of alarm this year. These have occurred at major
political events (such as the G7 Summit), by youth climate movements (such
as the student-led Fridays for Future protests around the world), at
September’s Climate Week in New York, at COP26 in Glasgow, and at
individual sites of proposed new fossil fuel infrastructure (such as Line
3 in the United States, the Trans Mountain Pipeline in Canada, and the
EACOP pipeline in Uganda and Tanzania). These actions focus public
attention on climate change and raise its political salience, but whether
they will transform policies, investments, and behaviors remains among the
most important questions facing global society.
The burgeoning biological threat to civilization
For years, the United States and many other countries underinvested in
defense against natural, accidental, and intentional biological threats.
They also underestimated the impacts that a biological threat could have
on the entire world. COVID-19 revealed vulnerabilities in every country
and the world’s collective ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover
from infectious disease outbreaks.
The COVID-19 pandemic rightly has absorbed the world’s attention, given
its demonstrated ability to sicken and kill millions, weaken national
economies and global supply chains, and destabilize governments and
societies. And yet, what the world has experienced during this pandemic is
nowhere close to a worst-case scenario.
To deal with the crisis at hand, the world is focusing almost all its
efforts on COVID-19, to the exclusion of other biological threats. The
scope of potential biological threats is expansive. Preventing and
mitigating future biological events will require a wider lens for viewing
biological threats. For example, slow vaccination rates have allowed virus
mutations, perpetuating the threat from COVID-19. Similarly, failing to
address antibiotic resistance could trigger a worldwide pandemic involving
antimicrobial-resistant organisms within a decade. Research into novel
diseases has proliferated high-containment laboratories around the world.
Some of those labs inadvertently release pathogens into the environment.
Some regimes to monitor and regulate these laboratories are perceived by
their researchers to be excessively burdensome and restrictive. At the
same time, the Biological Weapons and Toxin Convention still struggles to
find effective ways to enforce its prohibitions on the development and
production of biological agents and weapons.
This year, the US Department of State declared that Russia and North Korea
possess active biological weapons programs and expressed concern about
dual-use biological research programs in China and Iran. Terrorist
organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS and some criminal organizations
continue to profess their determination to build, acquire, and use
biological weapons to achieve their goals. The globally inadequate
response to COVID-19 only serves to underscore that an attack using a
weapon containing biological agents designed to resist existing medical
countermeasures could provide attackers with some of the tactical,
operational, strategic, and economic advantages they seek. The US
Department of Defense is now concerned enough about that prospect to
undertake a biological posture review.
US Marine Corps practice responding to weapons of mass destruction
scenarios.
Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense specialists with
the US Marine Corps practice responding to weapons of mass destruction
scenarios. (US Marine Corps via Wikimedia Commons)
The world now lives in an age of biological innovation. Many countries and
corporations are making enormous investments in biological science,
biotechnology, and combinational science and technology (in which biology
combines with other fields), recognizing that they have immense
opportunities to establish and grow bio-economies. Innovative biological
research and development efforts simultaneously increase and decrease
biological risk. The field is moving quickly.
CRISPR-Cas9, the revolutionary genetic engineering tool that scientists in
the United States and Sweden discovered in 2012, is cheap and ubiquitous
today, spurring investments in genetic testing and adult stem cell
technologies. Countries and non-state actors are exploring ways to create
super-soldiers, personalize medicine, increase human performance, improve
human gene therapy, and synthesize biology. Innovations such as synthetic
biology have created new areas of discovery, outpacing current public
health, safety, and security measures.
The world is failing to recognize the multifaceted nature of the
biological threat. Advances in biological science and technology can harm
us as well as help us. Leaders must recognize that COVID-19 is not the
last biological threat we will have to face in our lifetimes—or, perhaps,
even this year.
Disruptive technology in the age of disinformation
The new US administration has done much to reestablish the role of
scientists in informing public policy, and even more to minimize
deliberate confusion and chaos emanating from the White House. Thoughtful
deliberation—merely a promise in January 2021—appears to be realized more
often today. On the other hand, disinformation fomented outside the
executive branch—including from some members of Congress and many state
leaders—appears to have taken root in alarming and dangerous ways.
Large fractions of Congress and the public continue to deny that Joe Biden
legitimately won the presidential election, and their views on these
matters appear to be hardening rather than moderating. Similar trends
regarding COVID-related disinformation are apparent around the world,
crippling the ability of public health authorities and medical science to
achieve higher vaccination rates. Mask-wearing and social distancing are
similarly discouraged by disinformation. While we know more now about the
role of social media campaigns in taking advantage of vulnerabilities in
human psychology and cognition to spread disinformation and societal
disunity, the behavior of social media companies has changed hardly at
all. Political attacks on institutions that provide societal continuity
and store hard-won knowledge about how best to deal with problems continue
apace.
In cyber conflict, cyberattackers have grown more audacious. The
SolarWinds hack, an attack on Microsoft Exchange that affected millions
around the world, and a ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline (resolved
only with the payment of $4.4 million to get the system up and running
again) all demonstrate the far-reaching ramifications of
cyber-vulnerabilities.
The good news in cyber includes a Biden executive order and other federal
government initiatives on cybersecurity that seem to have significant
force and momentum behind them and have gone farther than previous orders
and initiatives. The expert cybersecurity team the new administration has
assembled has the ear of the president. In addition, against all odds,
both the UN Open-Ended Working Group and the Group of Government Experts
have reached some rough consensus on cyber norms of behavior. (The first
group involves representatives from most of the world’s nations; the
latter includes the biggest players in cyber.) It remains to be seen
whether these norms actually affect the behavior of national actors in
cyberspace, but it is better to have these norms in place (or in the
process of being formed and agreed to) than not to have them at all.
It also appears that Chinese use of surveillance technology has reached
new heights in Xinjiang in the last year. Artificial intelligence and
facial recognition systems intended to reveal states of emotion have been
tested on Uyghurs in Xinjiang. In the last year, it has also come to light
that China is seeking to develop standards for using facial recognition
that can be optimized for distinguishing individuals by ethnic group. The
potential widespread deployment of these technologies presents a distinct
threat to human rights around the world and, therefore, civilization as we
know and practice it.
Finally, tensions over military space activity have increased in the past
few years. For example, Russia conducted an anti-satellite missile test in
November, destroying one of its own satellites and creating a debris cloud
that orbited dangerously close to the International Space Station. Russia
has also “injected an object into orbit” that subsequently approached
another Russian satellite already in orbit in a manner consistent with its
use as an anti-satellite weapon. A similar activity has been used to
follow a US government satellite. Press reports have suggested that US
Space Command is on the verge of disclosing a new anti-satellite weapon.
On the other hand, US officials from the State and Defense departments
were reported to be drafting language for a binding UN resolution
regarding responsible behavior in space. If approved, such language could
reduce the likelihood of space incidents taking place.
Practical steps to move the world away from catastrophe and toward a safer
world
Last year, we looked forward to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic—but that
end is not yet in sight. Leaders in the wealthiest and most advanced
countries have not acted with the speed and focus necessary to manage dire
threats to humanity’s future.
Our decision to keep the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight is a
clear warning to the world: We need to back away from the doorstep of
doom. Immediate, practical steps to protect humanity from the major global
threats that we have outlined are needed:
The Russian and US presidents should identify more ambitious and
comprehensive limits on nuclear weapons and delivery systems by the end of
2022. They should both agree to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons by
limiting their roles, missions, and platforms, and decrease budgets
accordingly.
The United States and other countries should accelerate their
decarbonization, matching policies to commitments. China should set an
example by pursuing sustainable development pathways—not fossil
fuel-intensive projects—in the Belt and Road Initiative.
US and other leaders should work through the World Health Organization and
other international institutions to reduce biological risks of all kinds
through better monitoring of animal-human interactions, improvements in
international disease surveillance and reporting, increased production and
distribution of medical supplies, and expanded hospital capacity.
The United States should persuade allies and rivals that no-first-use of
nuclear weapons is a step toward security and stability and then declare
such a policy in concert with Russia (and China).
President Biden should eliminate the US president’s sole authority to
launch nuclear weapons and work to persuade other countries with nuclear
weapons to put in place similar barriers.
Russia should rejoin the NATO-Russia Council and collaborate on
risk-reduction and escalation-avoidance measures.
North Korea should codify its moratorium on nuclear tests and long-range
missile tests and help other countries verify a moratorium on enriched
uranium and plutonium production.
Iran and the United States should jointly return to full compliance with
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and initiate new, broader talks on
Middle East security and missile constraints.
Private and public investors should redirect funds away from fossil fuel
projects to climate-friendly investments.
The world’s wealthier countries should provide more financial support and
technology cooperation to developing countries to undertake strong climate
action. COVID-recovery investments should favor climate mitigation and
adaptation objectives across all economic sectors and address the full
range of potential greenhouse gas emission reductions, including capital
investments in urban development, agriculture, transport, heavy industry,
buildings and appliances, and electric power.
National leaders and international organizations should devise more
effective regimes for monitoring biological research and development
efforts.
Governments, technology firms, academic experts, and media organizations
should cooperate to identify and implement practical and ethical ways to
combat internet-enabled misinformation and disinformation.
At every reasonable opportunity, citizens of all countries should hold
their local, regional, and national political officials and business and
religious leaders accountable by asking “What are you doing to address
climate change?”
Without swift and focused action, truly catastrophic events—events that
could end civilization as we know it—are more likely. When the Clock
stands at 100 seconds to midnight, we are all threatened. The moment is
both perilous and unsustainable, and the time to act is now.
### - in-yer-face info re the state of civilisation, and THIS (those
observations) being mostly written back in january 'before' the invasion!?
as in: wouldn't like to think where this clock stands now lol...
60 seconds to midnight? (could well be, considering the situation in
ukraine)
maybe it's even only 30-seconds to midnight considering the looming
unacceptable/intolerable stalemate??
either way, it genuinely looks like we're running outta time!
(so is it time for some 'real' sanity yet? - not yet?? - D'oh!) ;)
hmm, we're certainly cutting it very fine...
Re: At doom’s doorstep: It is 100 seconds to midnight
Date: January 20, 2022
Last year’s leadership change in the United States provided hope that what
seemed like a global race toward catastrophe might be halted and—with
renewed US engagement—even reversed. Indeed, in 2021 the new American
administration changed US policies in some ways that made the world safer:
agreeing to an extension of the New START arms control agreement and
beginning strategic stability talks with Russia; announcing that the
United States would seek to return to the Iran nuclear deal; and rejoining
the Paris climate accord. Perhaps even more heartening was the return of
science and evidence to US policy making in general, especially regarding
the COVID-19 pandemic. A more moderate and predictable approach to
leadership and the control of one of the two largest nuclear arsenals of
the world marked a welcome change from the previous four years.
Still, the change in US leadership alone was not enough to reverse
negative international security trends that had been long in developing
and continued across the threat horizon in 2021.
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/
US relations with Russia and China remain tense, with all three countries
engaged in an array of nuclear modernization and expansion
efforts—including China’s apparent large-scale program to increase its
deployment of silo-based long-range nuclear missiles; the push by Russia,
China, and the United States to develop hypersonic missiles; and the
continued testing of anti-satellite weapons by many nations. If not
restrained, these efforts could mark the start of a dangerous new nuclear
arms race. Other nuclear concerns, including North Korea’s unconstrained
nuclear and missile expansion and the (as yet) unsuccessful attempts to
revive the Iran nuclear deal contribute to growing dangers. Ukraine
remains a potential flashpoint, and Russian troop deployments to the
Ukrainian border heighten day-to-day tensions.
For many countries, a huge gap still exists between long-term greenhouse
gas-reduction pledges and the near- and medium-term emission-reduction
actions needed to achieve those goals. Although the new US
administration’s quick return to the Paris Agreement speaks the right
words, it has yet to be matched with actionable policies.
Developed countries improved their responses to the continuing COVID-19
pandemic in 2021, but the worldwide response remained entirely
insufficient. Plans for quick global distribution of vaccines essentially
collapsed, leaving poorer countries largely unvaccinated and allowing new
variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to gain an unwelcome foothold. Beyond the
pandemic, worrying biosafety and biosecurity lapses made it clear that the
international community needs to focus serious attention on management of
the global biological research enterprise. Further, the establishment and
pursuit of biological weapons programs marked the beginning of a new
biological arms race.
And while the new US administration made progress in reestablishing the
role of science and evidence in public policy, corruption of the
information ecosystem continued apace in 2021. One particularly concerning
variety of internet-based disinformation infected America last year: Waves
of internet-enabled lies persuaded a significant portion of the US public
to believe the utterly false narrative contending that Joe Biden did not
win the US presidential election in 2020. Continued efforts to foster this
narrative threaten to undermine future US elections, American democracy in
general, and, therefore, the United States’ ability to lead global efforts
to manage existential risk.
In view of this mixed threat environment—with some positive developments
counteracted by worrisome and accelerating negative trends—the members of
the Science and Security Board find the world to be no safer than it was
last year at this time and therefore decide to set the Doomsday Clock once
again at 100 seconds to midnight. This decision does not, by any means,
suggest that the international security situation has stabilized. On the
contrary, the Clock remains the closest it has ever been to
civilization-ending apocalypse because the world remains stuck in an
extremely dangerous moment. In 2019 we called it the new abnormal, and it
has unfortunately persisted.
Last year, despite laudable efforts by some leaders and the public,
negative trends in nuclear and biological weapons, climate change, and a
variety of disruptive technologies—all exacerbated by a corrupted
information ecosphere that undermines rational decision making—kept the
world within a stone’s throw of apocalypse. Global leaders and the public
are not moving with anywhere near the speed or unity needed to prevent
disaster.
Leaders around the world must immediately commit themselves to renewed
cooperation in the many ways and venues available for reducing existential
risk. Citizens of the world can and should organize to demand that their
leaders do so—and quickly. The doorstep of doom is no place to loiter.
The nuclear tightrope
During 2021, some nuclear risks declined while others rose. Upcoming
decisions on nuclear policies could generate either salutary or dangerous
modifications of an already uncertain and worrisome security situation.
The February 2021 agreement between the United States and Russia to renew
New START for five years is a decidedly positive development. This
extension creates a window of opportunity to negotiate a future arms
control agreement between the two countries that possess 90 percent of the
nuclear weapons on the planet. The United States and Russia also agreed to
start two sets of dialogues about how to best maintain “nuclear stability”
in the future: the Working Group on Principles and Objectives for Future
Arms Control and the Working Group on Capabilities and Actions with
Strategic Effects. These groups have met and in early 2022 are expected to
report on initial results of the consultations, aimed at shaping future
arms control agreements.
Another bright spot was the Biden administration's announcements that it
would seek to return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
with Iran and offer to enter strategic stability talks with China.
Although no talks between North Korea and the United States took place in
2021, the North Koreans have not resumed testing of nuclear weapons or
long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). (Tests of
shorter-range missiles have continued.) Finally, when the Biden
administration began its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) process, it
announced that one specific goal would be to “reduce the role of nuclear
weapons” in US national security policy.
Other developments, however, appeared on the negative side of the ledger:
Iran continues to build an enriched uranium stockpile, insisting that all
sanctions be removed before returning to talks with the United States on
the JCPOA. The window of opportunity seems to be closing. Over time,
Iran's neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, may feel compelled to acquire
similar capabilities, foreshadowing the frightening possibility of a
Middle East with multiple countries with the expertise and material to
build nuclear weapons.
The Chinese have started to build new ICBM silos on a large scale, leading
to concerns that China may be considering a change in its nuclear
doctrine. China and Russia have both tested anti-satellite weapons
recently, increasing concerns about rapid escalation in any conventional
conflict with the United States. Efforts by all three countries to field
hypersonic missiles are beginning to yield results, intensifying
competition. While experts disagree on both the causes and the
consequences of these programs, they clearly mark the start of a new arms
competition.
The North Koreans continue to test nuclear-capable short- and medium-range
missiles, including cruise, ballistic, and glide vehicles, and there is
evidence of their restarting plutonium production. Meanwhile, there have
been no high-level negotiations between the United States and North Korea.
India and Pakistan continue to advance their nuclear, missile, and other
military capabilities with no diminution of possible flash points that
could lead to nuclear conflict.
As the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol demonstrated, no
country is immune from threats to its democracy, and in a state with
nuclear-weapons-usable material and nuclear weapons, both can be targets
for terrorists and fanatics. Notably, the insurrectionists came close to
capturing Vice President Mike Pence and the “nuclear football” that
accompanies the vice president as the backup system for nuclear launch
commands. More than 10 percent of those charged with crimes during the
January 6th insurrection were veterans or active service members. The
Pentagon has conducted a major review of extremism in the military and has
adopted new definitions of extremist activities in an attempt to reduce
this danger in the future. The seriousness of the problem is clear.
Finally, the United States is preparing a Nuclear Posture Review to guide
US strategy, policy, and deployments of nuclear weapons, but its overall
message appears not yet decided. We hope the document will assert that the
United States will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its deterrence
and defense policies, which in turn may positively affect the nuclear
weapons postures of other countries, leading, we believe, to a safer
world. Where we set the Clock next year will be influenced by what the
Nuclear Posture Review ultimately contains. Reports of congressional
interference in the process, resulting in the firing of personnel
conducting the review, suggests unwelcome politicization that could well
affect the outcome and make more rational nuclear weapons policies hard to
effect.
This past year’s climate negotiations in Glasgow marked an important
milestone in climate multilateralism: a critical first round of the
treaty’s cycle of upgrading national efforts. Countries were under
pressure to strengthen their emission-reduction pledges significantly
relative to their pledges six years ago in Paris. The results,
unfortunately, were insufficient. China and India affirmed that they would
move away from use of coal, but only gradually; they affirmed for the
first time the objective of achieving “net zero,” but only in 2060 and
2070, respectively. There was only partial progress toward defined
accounting rules to allow international markets for greenhouse gas
emissions and removals to develop. Developed countries again failed to
follow through on treaty commitments to provide necessary financial and
technological support. Overall, countries’ projections and plans for
fossil fuel production are far from adequate to achieve the global Paris
goals to limit the warming of the surface of the planet to “well below two
degrees Celsius” (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) relative to the temperature
around 1800, at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Encouragingly, several countries (as well as financial institutions and
corporations) have announced a commitment to achieve net-zero carbon
dioxide emissions for the long term—meaning by 2050 or thereabouts. These
announcements are significant, in that reaching zero aggregate carbon
dioxide emissions globally would halt the buildup of greenhouse gas
pollution in the atmosphere, which is absolutely critical to halting yet
more warming. Earnest efforts to reach these seemingly distant targets
require concerted actions in the immediate term, including a redirection
of investment away from the production and use of fossil fuel and toward
renewables and energy efficiency, massive upgrading of existing
infrastructure, and a shift in land use and agriculture practices. The
real test of the significance of these net-zero pledges will be whether
they are matched by near- and medium-term emission-reduction actions.
Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, 1990-2021. Despite
declining in 2020, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions remained
at 31.5 gigatonnes, which contributed to carbon dioxide reaching its
highest ever average annual concentration in the atmosphere of 412.5 parts
per million in 2020—around 50 percent higher than when the Industrial
Revolution began. In 2021, emissions increased to nearly match their 2019
peak. (Chart courtesy of IEA Global Energy Review 2021)
Last year, we noted optimistically the election of a US president who
“acknowledges climate change as a profound threat and supports
international cooperation and science-based policy,” and we’ve seen a
dramatic change in tone from the previous presidential administration.
Recognizing that “[t]he effects we are seeing of climate change are the
crisis of our generation,” Biden has indeed attempted to move forward
quickly, reentering the United States in the Paris Agreement and
announcing the United States’ updated Paris emission pledge of a 50
percent reduction by 2030. He has also signaled an attentiveness to the
connection between climate action and environmental justice, in both the
domestic and international contexts. He has committed to making climate
investments in disadvantaged communities within the United States, and at
the UN General Assembly meeting he pledged to double climate financing to
developing countries.
However, progress achievable through the US political process is highly
constrained and fragile, as any subsequent president may try to swing the
pendulum backward. The major infrastructure package passed in 2021 is less
of a “climate bill” than the Biden administration initially proposed, and
the fate of the climate goals of the “Build Back Better” bill hangs in the
balance of a starkly divided Congress. It thus is not yet clear how much
progress the United States will make in the coming year toward its
announced emissions reduction pledge and finance promise.
For over four decades the threat of climate change to “future generations”
has been ruefully noted. As warming has continued to drive up
temperatures—from an unprecedented extreme high temperature of 100 degrees
Fahrenheit in the Siberian Arctic to the record-breaking 2021 “heat dome”
over western Canada and the United States—today’s young people are
increasingly seeing themselves as the future victims. They are witnessing
human and ecosystem tragedies caused, for example, by droughts in eastern
Africa and the United States, floods in China and Europe, and wildfires
raging around the world, harbingers of yet more dire consequences as
climate change accelerates in their lifetimes.
The experience of a deepening crisis has animated protests and other civil
society expressions of alarm this year. These have occurred at major
political events (such as the G7 Summit), by youth climate movements (such
as the student-led Fridays for Future protests around the world), at
September’s Climate Week in New York, at COP26 in Glasgow, and at
individual sites of proposed new fossil fuel infrastructure (such as Line
3 in the United States, the Trans Mountain Pipeline in Canada, and the
EACOP pipeline in Uganda and Tanzania). These actions focus public
attention on climate change and raise its political salience, but whether
they will transform policies, investments, and behaviors remains among the
most important questions facing global society.
The burgeoning biological threat to civilization
For years, the United States and many other countries underinvested in
defense against natural, accidental, and intentional biological threats.
They also underestimated the impacts that a biological threat could have
on the entire world. COVID-19 revealed vulnerabilities in every country
and the world’s collective ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover
from infectious disease outbreaks.
The COVID-19 pandemic rightly has absorbed the world’s attention, given
its demonstrated ability to sicken and kill millions, weaken national
economies and global supply chains, and destabilize governments and
societies. And yet, what the world has experienced during this pandemic is
nowhere close to a worst-case scenario.
To deal with the crisis at hand, the world is focusing almost all its
efforts on COVID-19, to the exclusion of other biological threats. The
scope of potential biological threats is expansive. Preventing and
mitigating future biological events will require a wider lens for viewing
biological threats. For example, slow vaccination rates have allowed virus
mutations, perpetuating the threat from COVID-19. Similarly, failing to
address antibiotic resistance could trigger a worldwide pandemic involving
antimicrobial-resistant organisms within a decade. Research into novel
diseases has proliferated high-containment laboratories around the world.
Some of those labs inadvertently release pathogens into the environment.
Some regimes to monitor and regulate these laboratories are perceived by
their researchers to be excessively burdensome and restrictive. At the
same time, the Biological Weapons and Toxin Convention still struggles to
find effective ways to enforce its prohibitions on the development and
production of biological agents and weapons.
This year, the US Department of State declared that Russia and North Korea
possess active biological weapons programs and expressed concern about
dual-use biological research programs in China and Iran. Terrorist
organizations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS and some criminal organizations
continue to profess their determination to build, acquire, and use
biological weapons to achieve their goals. The globally inadequate
response to COVID-19 only serves to underscore that an attack using a
weapon containing biological agents designed to resist existing medical
countermeasures could provide attackers with some of the tactical,
operational, strategic, and economic advantages they seek. The US
Department of Defense is now concerned enough about that prospect to
undertake a biological posture review.
US Marine Corps practice responding to weapons of mass destruction
scenarios.
Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense specialists with
the US Marine Corps practice responding to weapons of mass destruction
scenarios. (US Marine Corps via Wikimedia Commons)
The world now lives in an age of biological innovation. Many countries and
corporations are making enormous investments in biological science,
biotechnology, and combinational science and technology (in which biology
combines with other fields), recognizing that they have immense
opportunities to establish and grow bio-economies. Innovative biological
research and development efforts simultaneously increase and decrease
biological risk. The field is moving quickly.
CRISPR-Cas9, the revolutionary genetic engineering tool that scientists in
the United States and Sweden discovered in 2012, is cheap and ubiquitous
today, spurring investments in genetic testing and adult stem cell
technologies. Countries and non-state actors are exploring ways to create
super-soldiers, personalize medicine, increase human performance, improve
human gene therapy, and synthesize biology. Innovations such as synthetic
biology have created new areas of discovery, outpacing current public
health, safety, and security measures.
The world is failing to recognize the multifaceted nature of the
biological threat. Advances in biological science and technology can harm
us as well as help us. Leaders must recognize that COVID-19 is not the
last biological threat we will have to face in our lifetimes—or, perhaps,
even this year.
Disruptive technology in the age of disinformation
The new US administration has done much to reestablish the role of
scientists in informing public policy, and even more to minimize
deliberate confusion and chaos emanating from the White House. Thoughtful
deliberation—merely a promise in January 2021—appears to be realized more
often today. On the other hand, disinformation fomented outside the
executive branch—including from some members of Congress and many state
leaders—appears to have taken root in alarming and dangerous ways.
Large fractions of Congress and the public continue to deny that Joe Biden
legitimately won the presidential election, and their views on these
matters appear to be hardening rather than moderating. Similar trends
regarding COVID-related disinformation are apparent around the world,
crippling the ability of public health authorities and medical science to
achieve higher vaccination rates. Mask-wearing and social distancing are
similarly discouraged by disinformation. While we know more now about the
role of social media campaigns in taking advantage of vulnerabilities in
human psychology and cognition to spread disinformation and societal
disunity, the behavior of social media companies has changed hardly at
all. Political attacks on institutions that provide societal continuity
and store hard-won knowledge about how best to deal with problems continue
apace.
In cyber conflict, cyberattackers have grown more audacious. The
SolarWinds hack, an attack on Microsoft Exchange that affected millions
around the world, and a ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline (resolved
only with the payment of $4.4 million to get the system up and running
again) all demonstrate the far-reaching ramifications of
cyber-vulnerabilities.
The good news in cyber includes a Biden executive order and other federal
government initiatives on cybersecurity that seem to have significant
force and momentum behind them and have gone farther than previous orders
and initiatives. The expert cybersecurity team the new administration has
assembled has the ear of the president. In addition, against all odds,
both the UN Open-Ended Working Group and the Group of Government Experts
have reached some rough consensus on cyber norms of behavior. (The first
group involves representatives from most of the world’s nations; the
latter includes the biggest players in cyber.) It remains to be seen
whether these norms actually affect the behavior of national actors in
cyberspace, but it is better to have these norms in place (or in the
process of being formed and agreed to) than not to have them at all.
It also appears that Chinese use of surveillance technology has reached
new heights in Xinjiang in the last year. Artificial intelligence and
facial recognition systems intended to reveal states of emotion have been
tested on Uyghurs in Xinjiang. In the last year, it has also come to light
that China is seeking to develop standards for using facial recognition
that can be optimized for distinguishing individuals by ethnic group. The
potential widespread deployment of these technologies presents a distinct
threat to human rights around the world and, therefore, civilization as we
know and practice it.
Finally, tensions over military space activity have increased in the past
few years. For example, Russia conducted an anti-satellite missile test in
November, destroying one of its own satellites and creating a debris cloud
that orbited dangerously close to the International Space Station. Russia
has also “injected an object into orbit” that subsequently approached
another Russian satellite already in orbit in a manner consistent with its
use as an anti-satellite weapon. A similar activity has been used to
follow a US government satellite. Press reports have suggested that US
Space Command is on the verge of disclosing a new anti-satellite weapon.
On the other hand, US officials from the State and Defense departments
were reported to be drafting language for a binding UN resolution
regarding responsible behavior in space. If approved, such language could
reduce the likelihood of space incidents taking place.
Practical steps to move the world away from catastrophe and toward a safer
world
Last year, we looked forward to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic—but that
end is not yet in sight. Leaders in the wealthiest and most advanced
countries have not acted with the speed and focus necessary to manage dire
threats to humanity’s future.
Our decision to keep the Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight is a
clear warning to the world: We need to back away from the doorstep of
doom. Immediate, practical steps to protect humanity from the major global
threats that we have outlined are needed:
The Russian and US presidents should identify more ambitious and
comprehensive limits on nuclear weapons and delivery systems by the end of
2022. They should both agree to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons by
limiting their roles, missions, and platforms, and decrease budgets
accordingly.
The United States and other countries should accelerate their
decarbonization, matching policies to commitments. China should set an
example by pursuing sustainable development pathways—not fossil
fuel-intensive projects—in the Belt and Road Initiative.
US and other leaders should work through the World Health Organization and
other international institutions to reduce biological risks of all kinds
through better monitoring of animal-human interactions, improvements in
international disease surveillance and reporting, increased production and
distribution of medical supplies, and expanded hospital capacity.
The United States should persuade allies and rivals that no-first-use of
nuclear weapons is a step toward security and stability and then declare
such a policy in concert with Russia (and China).
President Biden should eliminate the US president’s sole authority to
launch nuclear weapons and work to persuade other countries with nuclear
weapons to put in place similar barriers.
Russia should rejoin the NATO-Russia Council and collaborate on
risk-reduction and escalation-avoidance measures.
North Korea should codify its moratorium on nuclear tests and long-range
missile tests and help other countries verify a moratorium on enriched
uranium and plutonium production.
Iran and the United States should jointly return to full compliance with
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and initiate new, broader talks on
Middle East security and missile constraints.
Private and public investors should redirect funds away from fossil fuel
projects to climate-friendly investments.
The world’s wealthier countries should provide more financial support and
technology cooperation to developing countries to undertake strong climate
action. COVID-recovery investments should favor climate mitigation and
adaptation objectives across all economic sectors and address the full
range of potential greenhouse gas emission reductions, including capital
investments in urban development, agriculture, transport, heavy industry,
buildings and appliances, and electric power.
National leaders and international organizations should devise more
effective regimes for monitoring biological research and development
efforts.
Governments, technology firms, academic experts, and media organizations
should cooperate to identify and implement practical and ethical ways to
combat internet-enabled misinformation and disinformation.
At every reasonable opportunity, citizens of all countries should hold
their local, regional, and national political officials and business and
religious leaders accountable by asking “What are you doing to address
climate change?”
Without swift and focused action, truly catastrophic events—events that
could end civilization as we know it—are more likely. When the Clock
stands at 100 seconds to midnight, we are all threatened. The moment is
both perilous and unsustainable, and the time to act is now.
### - in-yer-face info re the state of civilisation, and THIS (those
observations) being mostly written back in january 'before' the invasion!?
as in: wouldn't like to think where this clock stands now lol...
60 seconds to midnight? (could well be, considering the situation in
ukraine)
maybe it's even only 30-seconds to midnight considering the looming
unacceptable/intolerable stalemate??
either way, it genuinely looks like we're running outta time!
(so is it time for some 'real' sanity yet? - not yet?? - D'oh!) ;)
hmm, we're certainly cutting it very fine...
chris rodgers
Oct 31, 2022, 7:51:43 PM10/31/22
to
> To: Leaders and citizens of the world
not god damn revolution but evolution.
surely there are scientific minds in Russia
what's with you peckerheads? god can't help you now.
actually god has never helped anyone.
take it up w/ chris hitchings when you get to the so called after life.
busy here boss burning the karma right out of my ass.
this job never gets done.
fuck it, tech support, flip the fandango.
slider
Oct 31, 2022, 9:43:54 PM10/31/22
to
>> To: Leaders and citizens of the world
>
> what the fuck ever happened to evolution??
> not god damn revolution but evolution.
when they actually need to look inner-space (inner-space is where the real
evolution/revolution is, always has been...)
> surely there are scientific minds in Russia
> what's with you peckerheads?
the same peckerheads just different accents; the west dreams of
domination, the russians of neutrality, but it's all the same shit really:
just a bunch of ideas in people's heads related to exclusively, and it
doesn't really seem to matter much what, anything will do...
> god can't help you now.
> actually god has never helped anyone.
> take it up w/ chris hitchings when you get to the so called after life.
lol :D he fucked up bigtime but might come out in the end... it all
depends on whether he just breaks, or evolves (evolving is the long shot
remember)
> busy here boss burning the karma right out of my ass.
> this job never gets done.
> fuck it, tech support, flip the fandango.
nah, nada ever gets done here matie, it's all about just doin' shit, no
beginnings and no ends either, just endless shit ya can always get
involved in anytime until ya gets bored with it, most of it completely
meaningless of course heh, although that not what peeps will say about
their treasured ideas while they's beatin' the shit outta ya haha...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnW-MxAU6U
(could be wallyworld's global anthem?)
LowRider44M
Nov 6, 2022, 9:26:12 PM11/6/22
to
> ### - damn, sure hopes am goin' to a different afterlife than that dude
> lol :D he fucked up bigtime but might come out in the end... it all
> depends on whether he just breaks, or evolves (evolving is the long shot
> remember)
> > busy here boss burning the karma right out of my ass.
> > this job never gets done.
> > fuck it, tech support, flip the fandango.
> ### - wot, you actually expect things to ever get... done??
>
> nah, nada ever gets done here matie, it's all about just doin' shit, no
> beginnings and no ends either, just endless shit ya can always get
> involved in anytime until ya gets bored with it, most of it completely
> meaningless of course heh, although that not what peeps will say about
> their treasured ideas while they's beatin' the shit outta ya haha...)
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQnW-MxAU6U
>
> (could be wallyworld's global anthem?)
https://youtu.be/aBQIAWh3YBs
Venus as a Boy
Nov 7, 2022, 5:26:47 PM11/7/22
to
Am 01.11.2022 um 00:51 schrieb chris rodgers:
>
>> To: Leaders and citizens of the world
>
> what the fuck ever happened to evolution??
They are blocking evolution with neuroleptics!
>
>> To: Leaders and citizens of the world
>
> what the fuck ever happened to evolution??
> not god damn revolution but evolution.
> surely there are scientific minds in Russia
> what's with you peckerheads? god can't help you now.
> actually god has never helped anyone.
> take it up w/ chris hitchings when you get to the so called after life.
> busy here boss burning the karma right out of my ass.
> this job never gets done.
> fuck it, tech support, flip the fandango.
>
>
https://slowtemplelovecozmicpurplehealing.wordpress.com
0 new messages