· 4 min read
The Doomsday Clock, an ominous yet powerful metaphor for humanity’s proximity to catastrophe, has been set to 89 seconds to midnight—the closest it has ever been to global disaster since its creation in 1947. The symbolic timepiece, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, considers threats from climate change, nuclear conflict, disruptive technology, and global disinformation to assess how close humanity stands to existential peril.
This year’s update reflects a confluence of crises, including record-breaking global temperatures, rising sea levels, escalating geopolitical tensions, and the increasing spread of disinformation that undermines science and policy efforts (BBC Future, 2022). But while these warnings are meant to ignite action, many feel powerless.
Dr. Frederic Bertley, a world-renowned scientist and science communicator, warns that public engagement with these issues often oscillates between complacency and hopelessness. In an exclusive interview, he shared insights on why the Doomsday Clock’s latest update should serve as a call to action, not despair.
What the doomsday clock means
Dr. Bertley highlights that the Doomsday Clock’s origins stem from the Manhattan Project, the scientific effort that led to the creation of nuclear weapons. "Experts, majority scientists, said, ‘Hey, wait a minute. We're going to use this metaphor—X minutes to midnight, midnight being catastrophe, death, and disorder,’" he explains. The idea was simple: as global risks escalate, the time moves closer to midnight.
Over the decades, nuclear risk has remained a central factor in the clock’s movement, but today, climate change and disinformation pose equally dire threats. “In 2024, we’ve seen extreme climate-driven disasters—from record wildfires to unprecedented ocean heat waves—but what’s even more dangerous is how disinformation and short-term thinking are stopping meaningful action,” Dr. Bertley emphasizes.
The question remains: If the clock is at its most dangerous setting, are we too late?
Geopolitical fragmentation: a roadblock to solutions
One of the most significant challenges today is geopolitical fragmentation. Nations are increasingly divided on how to address climate change, nuclear risks, and misinformation, often prioritizing short-term economic and political gains over long-term survival.
Dr. Bertley critiques this mindset, pointing out that human nature prioritizes immediate rewards over future security: “What humans don’t do a good job of [is understanding scale]. It's all about, ‘What have you done for me lately?’ We focus on the present rather than thinking 150 or 1500 years ahead.”
This short-term focus is evident in corporate and political inaction. Despite decades of climate warnings, major fossil fuel industries continue to expand production, and policymakers often stall decisive action due to economic or political considerations.
Dr. Bertley warns that without global cooperation, risks will only accelerate. "Will the corporate world and policymakers step up? If that were to happen, great. But if not, the burden falls on individuals and grassroots movements."
From warning to action: what can citizens do?
One of the biggest challenges in science communication is preventing warning fatigue—where constant exposure to dire predictions leads to apathy rather than action. Bertley stresses the importance of making scientific literacy accessible and actionable, "People need to see the business case for change. Who does it cost? How do immediate steps today impact long-term outcomes? Right now, people are stuck on a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.’”
But that mindset needs to shift, and individuals play a crucial role in driving collective action. Here’s what citizens can do:
• Demand accountability: Call for stronger policies on climate action and nuclear non-proliferation.
• Combat disinformation: Support reputable journalism, engage critically with news sources, and challenge false narratives.
• Reduce carbon footprint: Advocate for clean energy policies, push for corporate sustainability, and make environmentally conscious choices.
• Support science communication: Funding science education and amplifying credible voices can strengthen public trust in factual information.
The role of science in motivating change
One of the core issues behind inaction is the erosion of trust in science and expertise. He suggests that improving science communication and education is key to ensuring people engage with existential threats rather than dismiss them.
When asked how he would address global leaders at the World Economic Forum or G-8 Meetings, Dr. Bertley offered a striking suggestion: “I would buy James Gleick’s book Chaos and turn it into a podcast because no one reads anymore—except Forbes. Then I’d make world leaders listen to it to understand the butterfly effect: small changes can lead to massive consequences.” This concept applies to climate action, global conflict, and even misinformation. Small actions—whether passing a climate policy, funding renewable energy, or educating the public on science—can ripple into larger systemic change.
Are we out of time?
Despite the grim outlook of the 89-second Doomsday Clock setting, Dr. Bertley believes we are not beyond saving—if we act now. Science and history show that global challenges can be addressed when people demand change and decision-makers are held accountable.
The biggest takeaway? Hopelessness is not an option. The real question is: Will humanity listen before time runs out?
This article is also published on Forbes. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
