Doomsday Clock 9 years ago. Doomsday clock now at 89 seconds to midnight. "Yes, I have the power to blow up the whole world if I want to!"
What the recurring doomsday argument says, fundamentally, is that the human future is not so long and prosperous as we generally would like to think. I mean, consider a planet with over 10,000 nuclear weapons, enough to reduce it to an ash heap. What could possibly go wrong? Especially, given three or more madmen, tyrants and autocrats ready and willing to push the missile buttons at the drop of a hat. If it means holding onto power.
Enter now the well-known "Doomsday clock" which provides a more or less subjective take on how close we humans are to perdition. And since Trump's unlikely return to power in January, it has now moved to within 89 seconds of midnight.
Let's also quickly note that no serious scientist treats it as an exact quantitative measure of danger. It is more an analog -based estimate of probability embodied in an image anyone can grasp. (Much like the descending ball in NYC on New Year's Eve is purported to be a chronological countdown to the New Year.) The Doomsday Clock then embodies a potential countdown for humanity's end (as opposed to the end of an expired year) - factoring in the differing probabilities for the cumulative threats facing us.
A more precise interpretation might be as an analog estimate of the multiple correlation of mounting dangers to the time we have left to address them, before they lead to our extinction. One can even conceive of the clock as a kind of pictorial - image based multiple regression scenario of the cumulative threats at a given time, t. In this latter one is aware of not one but multiple (regressor) variables in relation to the predicted danger of "doom", D. These regressors constitute a set of threat variables, ranging from a Torino 9 asteroid strike ('x1'), to all - out nuclear war ('x2'), to runaway greenhouse effect, 'x3', to uncontained bird flu pandemic 'x4', to an unstable autocrat at the nuclear helm.
Given any or all of these how long might humanity survive with each of them in the background, but at differing probabilities? Physicist Steven Hawking, speaking at the Oxford Union on Nov. 15, 2016 provided an initial gauge.
Hawking ruminates on humanity's end in 2016.
He offered that humans had a maximum of 1,000 years to find another habitable world to colonize. Remaining on Earth any longer placed humanity at great risk of extinction, possibly from a planet killer asteroid, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/asteroids-celestial-swords-of-damocles.html
Hawking said:"We must continue to go into space for the future of humanity. I don't think we'll survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet."
In respect of threats like the above, he said:
"Though the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years."
I think he has a point, but would put the countdown clock until oblivion on Earth closer to 500 years. The reason? If we wait beyond then we will not have the resources to construct the ships needed to leave the planet. Also, it is likely by then that conditions associated with the runaway greenhouse will have fully set it, making it difficult if not impossible to get to safety, i.e. another world.
Already we are seeing havoc spread with the decimation of coral reefs around the world, the future potential for catastrophe having been reported in the journal PLOS by Linwood Pendleton, e.g.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164699
The temperature of the planet is currently out of balance by 0.6W/ m2 and this is almost entirely due to the annual rate of CO2 concentrations increasing. Further, every increase in CO2 concentration by 2.5 ppm increases the radiative heating effect by 2.5 W/ m2.
The late Carl Sagan who wrote the generalist essay "Ambush - The Warming of the World", estimated (in a CNN interview with Ted Turner in 1990) that the runaway would emerge when the mean global temperature exceeds 6 degrees Celsius. Right now, we are well on the way to reaching 4 C by 2100.
Prof. Gunter Weller estimated it would kick in when the CO2 concentration level of 600 ppm is surpassed. If the average (as of this month) is at 425 ppm now - then doing the math (adding 2.5 ppm per year and increasing radiative heating effect by 2.5 W/ m2 . puts us over 600 (612.5) in 75 years.
This gives us less than 100 years - making Hawking's deadlines at least a factor 5 closer in time and hence, more critical to meet. In effect, the projections of 700 years - by astronomer James Gott - or even 500 years, seem like too optimistic by far. Especially given Sagan and Shklovkii's arguments ('Intelligent Life In The Universe', 1966) that few technological civilizations are likely to survive their atomic era., i.e.
"Many have hypothesized that only a tiny fraction of civilizations survive beyond 10 5 - 10 7 years." Throw into the mix the wild card of Trump - an established wacko with Messiah delusions - and it's even more of a long shot. Why? Because he's destroyed or kneecapped every agency that might have extended our survival advantage, including the EPA. E.g.
Beyond that more prosaic risk, common sense would alert the sentient citizen to the intolerable risk of a demented narcissist egomaniac in proximity of the nuclear football and with aspirations of limitless power. That the football gives him control of nearly 6000 nuclear warheads- but no control of himself- yields further cause to worry. -awareness in respect of his limitations.
In a real manner of speaking, so long as Trump is around we are all living with a ticking human time bomb in our midst and no one knows when it will go off, or what will set him off to unleash the missiles - like the character Greg Stilson in the movie, The Dead Zone:
Here's the skinny: If Dictator Trump believes he is beyond all constraints there will come a time he will decide he needs to unleash the nukes - if not to go down in 'glory' like the would be maniac president Greg Stilson, then as an ultimate trump card to prevent his removal. Say either under the 25th amendment or by impeachment if the Reeps in congress ever come to their senses. And get some balls.
So using the multiple correlation model of mounting dangers, and excluding the Trump threat, I'd say humanity has maybe a 50-50 chance of 500 years left. If it's lucky and can get its habitat planet in order after Trump has laid waste to it. But if Trump remains in power- including in 2028 and beyond- using authoritarian moves to cancel elections then all bets are off.
See Also:
And:
And:
by Heather Digby Parton | August 27, 2025 - 5:25am | permalink— from Salon
On Monday night, President Donald Trump announced he was seeking to fire Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, after days of escalating hints and speculation. In moving to dismiss Cook, who was confirmed by the Senate to her seat in 2022, Trump sought to legally justify his position by pointing to “sufficient cause” — unproven allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud.
Through a spokesperson, Cook was unequivocal in her response and suggested she was ready to do battle. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.” Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, pledged to “take whatever actions are needed to prevent his attempted illegal action.”
Like all things Trump, there’s more to his action than meets the eye. Cook’s firing comes against the backdrop of the president exerting extraordinary pressure to bend the nation’s central bank to his will and lower interest rates. He has often mused about firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell in a bid to assume greater control of U.S. economic policy.
And:
by Thom Hartmann | August 28, 2025 - 5:50am | permalink— from The Hartmann Report
Monday night, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker came right out and said it. Trump sending troops into American cities has nothing whatsoever to do with crime or policing but, instead, is all about stealing the 2026 election:
“Eight of the top 10 states with the highest homicide rates are led by Republicans,” Pritzker said bluntly. “None of those states is Illinois.”
In fact, the cities with the highest crime and homicide rates are Memphis, Tennessee and St. Louis, Missouri respectively, both in Red States.
So, if this isn’t about crime, why is Trump working so hard to get Americans used to heavily armed troops — who aren’t trained in policing but can be very effective at crowd control — in our Blue cities?
And:
by Thom Hartmann | August 23, 2025 - 5:01am | permalink— from The Hartmann Report
With the raid on John Bolton‘s home, it looks like we may have reached that stage when fascist governments begin to turn against their critics, weaponizing the tools of a police state.
Richard Nixon went after his enemies, too, and once said, in the depths of the Watergate scandal, that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” He discovered the hard way that wasn’t true, at least back in the 1970s. More than 40 people connected to his White House and campaign were indicted, and many went to prison.
Nixon’s Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, Domestic Policy Advisor John Ehrlichman, White House Counsel John Dean, Attorney General John Mitchell, and special counsel Charles Colson all did time. So did several members of Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President, better known as CREEP, for their crimes of burglary, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Nixon himself escaped accountability only because Gerald Ford pardoned him.
No comments:
Post a Comment