It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Myendica
Well, uh, what time does the clock say now? I tried looking for this clock but just found a bunch of print. My suggestion is that its about 4:20.
2007: The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb. Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property.
Originally posted by PH43DRUS
Why does it matter?
There have been apocalyptic predictions and prophecies for hundreds if not thousands of years, and yet we are still here.
What is the point of being so attached to the prophecies? What is the point of being so attached to the unknowable future? All it does is muddy up the only time we do have, which is NOW. Could happen tomorrow. Perhaps in a thousand years. Maybe never. If it does happen, I will have little control over the outcome, so I'll just enjoy now for as long as I can.
Originally posted by PH43DRUS
reply to post by ImzadiDax
I didn't mean to infer that the Doomsday Clock was attached to any kind of prophecy. I was speaking on the human condition, and its apparent attachment to prophecy (i.e. Revelations, 2012 and the Maya, etc.). Sorry for the confusion.
The link in the OP says it was started after WWII, when the cold war, threats of nuclear holocaust began, and tensions were at their highest. It also mentioned that setting the clock is relativly arbitrary, and decided by a group of atomic scientists, based on global affairs. I have to remain skeptical about atomic scientists and their insights into global affairs. Global geopolitics just doesn't seem like it would be a forte of an atomic scientist, IMO, so, how could an arbitrary setting from these men carry any merit? Maybe they have an inside source, IDK, just seems like a bunch of PR hype and hogwash to me.
P.S. Sorry if I'm pouring water on your thread, I'll leave now.