The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have hit the headlines because they have moved their doomsday clock forward 2 minutes. We are now 3 minutes from midnight – doomsday – the end of civilization. The rationale for this decision is due to the ongoing likelihood of nuclear war and the danger of climate change.

This seems intuitively a bit odd. Is nuclear war on a worldwide scale really a more present and dangerous threat now than at the height of pressure points in the Cold War? Climate change is a real worry, but are its effects really likely to be so imminent and so dramatic as to merit this sense of imminent doom?

More generally, what good is a symbolic clock whose time is voted on by the subjective assessment of a group of scientists? Is it not odd that this clock goes relatively unchallenged – and such challenges as are permitted come from within the nuclear scientific community?

While nuclear scientists are undoubtedly qualified to talk about the potential impact of a nuclear weapon once it has been fired that is surely only a relatively small part of the story. They are not qualified to comment on how likely it is that such a weapon would ever be fired in the first place. Such an analysis would necessarily rest on the psychology of individual leaders, notions of game theory, the cultural and historical milieu of the actors in question, the geopolitical situation, the list goes on and on. A vast number of factors are involved almost all of which are frankly at least, if not more significant, than the scientific evidence of the effect of such a weapon.

A good example of this is seen in the rationale for moving the clock in 2012 due to lack of political consensus on climate change. Nothing at all qualifies a group of scientists to predict future political agreements or factors. Most have no expertise on the possible effects of climate change itself (note: they are not necessarily wrong about it, simply not necessarily any more qualified to pontificate than say, a professor of English literature. They may be very intelligent, they may be correct, but they are not experts in an appropriate field). Yet the authority to pronounce on the doom of the world goes unchallenged.

This is something of a modern trend – a deference to the authority of scientists to predict and understand everything – even issues far beyond their own competence or expertise. Nuclear scientists pontificate on political dealings, military scenarios and psychology. Evolutionary biologists are allowed to become public spokesmen on philosophy, culture and politics. In each case there is a bizarre public and professional acquiescence to their authority, as if a PhD in any scientific discipline will do for general expertise. 

In the case of the doomsday clock we have a classic example of this misplaced authority, and one propped up with powerful, if ultimately empty, symbolism – ironically the very charge usually levelled against “irrational” religious believers.

Ben Ryan is a researcher at Theos

Image from wikimedia available in the public domain.