By undermining cooperative, science- and law-based approaches to managing the most urgent threats to humanity, leaders have helped to create a situation that will, if unaddressed, lead to catastrophe, sooner rather than later." (Photo: Getty Images)
Something Like Coronavirus Is Exactly What the Doomsday Clock Has Been Warning About
While "social isolation" and other tactics being used today to combat the coronavirus pandemic are not those needed to address the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, the resolve now being exhibited to take major steps to bring about swift change is a model for dealing with these existential threats to the future of human life.
Remember the threats of nuclear war and climate change?
After a few months of life with the coronavirus pandemic, the existential threats to humankind that once dominated so much of our thinking may seem much more removed from today than they are.
In fact, as the person who convened the Jan. 23, 2020 announcement in which the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of its iconic Doomsday Clock twenty seconds closer to midnight, I have been asked more than once, "How did the Doomsday Clock miss the coronavirus?"
The truth is that it didn't.
While concerns about climate change and nuclear war were the major drivers in moving the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the 2020 statement issued by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists returns over and over again to the same underlying problem: The deliberate erosion by politicians of science and our core institutions.
As the Doomsday Clock Statement notes: "Over the last two years, we have seen influential leaders denigrate and discard the most effective methods for addressing complex threats ... in favor of their own narrow interests and domestic political gain. By undermining cooperative, science- and law-based approaches to managing the most urgent threats to humanity, leaders have helped to create a situation that will, if unaddressed, lead to catastrophe, sooner rather than later."
In recent years, we have seen a growing group of national leaders dismiss information with which they do not agree as fake news and advance their own untruths for domestic political gain. Scientists and experts are being marginalized just as their findings are most needed to navigate increasingly complex and global 21st century challenges.
As we pointed out back then, "In the United States, there is active political antagonism toward science and a growing sense of government-sanctioned disdain for expert opinion, creating fear and doubt regarding well-established science about climate change and other urgent challenges."
Four months later, I read those words and I am chilled by the extent to which they anticipated the early denial in the U.S. of the coronavirus pandemic threat, the downplaying and delaying of needed public health responses, the "China virus" references, the vilifying of prominent scientists, and so forth. It is a disastrous succession of falling dominoes made possible by four years of shredding science, mocking scientists and other experts and catering to conspiracy theories instead of nurturing our previously most trusted institutions.
On the date in January when the Doomsday Clock minute hand moved closer to midnight, reports were emerging from China about the fast-spreading virus that was prompting the government in Beijing to quarantine the entire city of Wuhan. The United States had recognized its first case of coronavirus only one day earlier.
Since then, we have joined many others in asking: Where do we go from here?
Rather than turning inward and undertaking a global blame-game, the challenge before us is how best respond to the current worldwide emergency because we can expect more of them in the years to come.
While "social isolation" and other tactics being used today to combat the coronavirus pandemic are not those needed to address the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, the resolve now being exhibited to take major steps to bring about swift change is a model for dealing with these existential threats to the future of human life. Wide scale individual action remains essential to demanding that political leaders take action now before it is too late.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Remember the threats of nuclear war and climate change?
After a few months of life with the coronavirus pandemic, the existential threats to humankind that once dominated so much of our thinking may seem much more removed from today than they are.
In fact, as the person who convened the Jan. 23, 2020 announcement in which the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of its iconic Doomsday Clock twenty seconds closer to midnight, I have been asked more than once, "How did the Doomsday Clock miss the coronavirus?"
The truth is that it didn't.
While concerns about climate change and nuclear war were the major drivers in moving the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the 2020 statement issued by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists returns over and over again to the same underlying problem: The deliberate erosion by politicians of science and our core institutions.
As the Doomsday Clock Statement notes: "Over the last two years, we have seen influential leaders denigrate and discard the most effective methods for addressing complex threats ... in favor of their own narrow interests and domestic political gain. By undermining cooperative, science- and law-based approaches to managing the most urgent threats to humanity, leaders have helped to create a situation that will, if unaddressed, lead to catastrophe, sooner rather than later."
In recent years, we have seen a growing group of national leaders dismiss information with which they do not agree as fake news and advance their own untruths for domestic political gain. Scientists and experts are being marginalized just as their findings are most needed to navigate increasingly complex and global 21st century challenges.
As we pointed out back then, "In the United States, there is active political antagonism toward science and a growing sense of government-sanctioned disdain for expert opinion, creating fear and doubt regarding well-established science about climate change and other urgent challenges."
Four months later, I read those words and I am chilled by the extent to which they anticipated the early denial in the U.S. of the coronavirus pandemic threat, the downplaying and delaying of needed public health responses, the "China virus" references, the vilifying of prominent scientists, and so forth. It is a disastrous succession of falling dominoes made possible by four years of shredding science, mocking scientists and other experts and catering to conspiracy theories instead of nurturing our previously most trusted institutions.
On the date in January when the Doomsday Clock minute hand moved closer to midnight, reports were emerging from China about the fast-spreading virus that was prompting the government in Beijing to quarantine the entire city of Wuhan. The United States had recognized its first case of coronavirus only one day earlier.
Since then, we have joined many others in asking: Where do we go from here?
Rather than turning inward and undertaking a global blame-game, the challenge before us is how best respond to the current worldwide emergency because we can expect more of them in the years to come.
While "social isolation" and other tactics being used today to combat the coronavirus pandemic are not those needed to address the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, the resolve now being exhibited to take major steps to bring about swift change is a model for dealing with these existential threats to the future of human life. Wide scale individual action remains essential to demanding that political leaders take action now before it is too late.
Remember the threats of nuclear war and climate change?
After a few months of life with the coronavirus pandemic, the existential threats to humankind that once dominated so much of our thinking may seem much more removed from today than they are.
In fact, as the person who convened the Jan. 23, 2020 announcement in which the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of its iconic Doomsday Clock twenty seconds closer to midnight, I have been asked more than once, "How did the Doomsday Clock miss the coronavirus?"
The truth is that it didn't.
While concerns about climate change and nuclear war were the major drivers in moving the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight, the 2020 statement issued by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists returns over and over again to the same underlying problem: The deliberate erosion by politicians of science and our core institutions.
As the Doomsday Clock Statement notes: "Over the last two years, we have seen influential leaders denigrate and discard the most effective methods for addressing complex threats ... in favor of their own narrow interests and domestic political gain. By undermining cooperative, science- and law-based approaches to managing the most urgent threats to humanity, leaders have helped to create a situation that will, if unaddressed, lead to catastrophe, sooner rather than later."
In recent years, we have seen a growing group of national leaders dismiss information with which they do not agree as fake news and advance their own untruths for domestic political gain. Scientists and experts are being marginalized just as their findings are most needed to navigate increasingly complex and global 21st century challenges.
As we pointed out back then, "In the United States, there is active political antagonism toward science and a growing sense of government-sanctioned disdain for expert opinion, creating fear and doubt regarding well-established science about climate change and other urgent challenges."
Four months later, I read those words and I am chilled by the extent to which they anticipated the early denial in the U.S. of the coronavirus pandemic threat, the downplaying and delaying of needed public health responses, the "China virus" references, the vilifying of prominent scientists, and so forth. It is a disastrous succession of falling dominoes made possible by four years of shredding science, mocking scientists and other experts and catering to conspiracy theories instead of nurturing our previously most trusted institutions.
On the date in January when the Doomsday Clock minute hand moved closer to midnight, reports were emerging from China about the fast-spreading virus that was prompting the government in Beijing to quarantine the entire city of Wuhan. The United States had recognized its first case of coronavirus only one day earlier.
Since then, we have joined many others in asking: Where do we go from here?
Rather than turning inward and undertaking a global blame-game, the challenge before us is how best respond to the current worldwide emergency because we can expect more of them in the years to come.
While "social isolation" and other tactics being used today to combat the coronavirus pandemic are not those needed to address the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, the resolve now being exhibited to take major steps to bring about swift change is a model for dealing with these existential threats to the future of human life. Wide scale individual action remains essential to demanding that political leaders take action now before it is too late.