The Doomsday Clock Is Now 85 Seconds to Midnight. Here’s What That Means
Summary
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight — the closest it has ever been. The Science and Security Board cites escalating nuclear risk, climate breakdown, worsening biosecurity threats, and rapidly advancing disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence as core drivers. Rising nationalistic and autocratic behaviour, and a collapse in international cooperation, amplify these dangers. The Bulletin warns that urgent leadership and multilateral action are needed to avert catastrophe.
Key Points
- The Doomsday Clock now reads 85 seconds to midnight — the nearest point to ‘midnight’ since the clock’s creation.
- Main drivers: nuclear weapons risk, climate crisis, biosecurity concerns, and disruptive technologies such as AI.
- Declining international cooperation and rising nationalism make coordinated risk reduction much harder.
- The Bulletin urges immediate diplomatic steps: renewed nuclear arms talks, AI and biosecurity regulation, and accelerated fossil-fuel reduction.
- The clock is symbolic: it signals urgent, actionable choices for political leaders and citizens — there is still time, but not much.
Content Summary
Established in 1947, the Doomsday Clock symbolises humanity’s proximity to global catastrophe. After being set at 90 seconds in 2023–24 and 89 seconds last year, the Bulletin has moved the hands again to 85 seconds due to worsening risks and insufficient global response. The Science and Security Board highlights that technological advances (notably AI), biological risks, and climate impacts are converging with renewed great-power rivalry. The report criticises complacent leadership and urges the United States, Russia, China and other major powers to revive talks and create multilateral rules to reduce existential risks.
Context and Relevance
This update matters because the Doomsday Clock is used by scientists and policy experts as a public indicator of systemic global risk. Its movement reflects measurable shifts in geopolitics, technology governance and climate progress. For readers interested in security, tech policy, climate action or public policy, the Bulletin’s statement underlines trends already shaping regulation and defence planning: fewer norms, more competition, and faster tech-enabled threats. It feeds directly into debates on arms control, AI safety, pandemic preparedness and energy policy.
Why should I read this?
Simple: it’s a compact, expert-backed alarm bell. If you care about how AI, nuclear strategy, climate policy or biosecurity are likely to affect geopolitics (and your industry or community), this is the snapshot you need. It’s short, stark and tells you where leaders must act now — and where the game is changing. Read it so you know how urgent the conversation has become.