by Laerke Christensen, reporter

The ‘Doomsday Clock’, which has been set since 1947, is run by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and is an indicator of how close humanity is to the end of the world.

This year the clock’s hands have not moved from when they were set at 2 minutes to midnight last year, but the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is keen to underline that this doesn’t mean humanity should be complacent.

Calling the current era the “new abnormal”, the Bulletin cites a lack of progress on nuclear risks and climate change dangers as reasons why it is still 2 minutes to midnight.

As the press gathered in Washington D.C, Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said: “There is nothing normal about the complex and frightening reality we are describing today. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board today sets the Doomsday Clock at two minutes to midnight—the closest it has ever been to apocalypse. Though unchanged from 2018, this setting should be taken not as a sign of stability but as a stark warning to leaders and citizens around the world.”

To exit the new abnormal, the Bulletin suggests USA and Russia must start to work together to secure and limit their nuclear arsenal. They also suggest that the US should re-engage with Iran over nuclear issues and that citizens should demand climate action from their governments. Finally, the Bulletin suggests that misuse of information technology to undermine public trust in political institutions should be discouraged and penalised.

2 minutes to midnight is the closest to destruction the world has been since 1953 (not counting last year, when the clock was also set at 2 minutes to midnight).

In 2018, the Bulletin quoted nuclear risks on the Korean Peninsula and in South Asia and the Middle East, a lack of progress in lowering global carbon dioxide emissions and “internet-based deception campaigns aimed at undermining elections and popular confidence in institutions essential to free thought and global security” as reasons behind why the world was now closer to the abyss than ever before.

However, while some look to the Doomsday clock as a tool to help humanity see how well (or not) it’s doing, sceptics say that not only is it frequently wrong – its unit of measuring doesn’t work and its statements are not based on science but rather function as an opinion piece for a particular group of people.

Tristin Hopper is a journalist at the National Post in Edmonton, Canada. He criticised the Doomsday Clock for all the above reasons, saying that it did more harm than good and, ultimately, did much to degrade trust in science.

“For a large section of the population who thinks that scientists aren’t actually scientists and are just expressing an opinion and pushing an agenda, this actually is an example of people doing that and it, I think, reduces trust for the scientific community overall.”

However, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists argues that the clock was never intended as concrete science.

Former Chief Executive of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Dr Kennette Benedict said it should be regarded as a metaphor:

“It was always meant to be a metaphor rather than a scientific indicator of how close we are to the end of civilisation as we know it. The scientists who wrote for and edited the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists know what science is about and they also understood that this clock that Martyl Langsdorf had designed was meant to be a communication device and a metaphor.”

She added that it wasn’t mean to scare, but rather to raise awareness:

“In our everyday lives we don’t pay much attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons or more recently to the coming of climate change and the drastic changes that will bring to our everyday lives.”

Whether you believe the Doomsday Clock is doing more harm than good or that it’s a helpful reminder that humanity is its own worst enemy, the clock ticks on. Luckily, this particular clock also turns backwards.

To find out more about the Doomsday Clock and the work that goes into setting it, visit the website of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.