A Brief History of the Doomsday Clock

A Brief History of the Doomsday Clock In June 1947, almost two years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs, the first issue of the magazine Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was printed, featuring a stylized clock on its cover. The clock displayed the time seven minutes to midnight, a symbolic representation of how close humanity was to destroying itself in a nuclear war, at least according to the judgment of the Bulletins editors. Since then, the Doomsday Clock has been an ever-present fixture on the world stage, set back when nations behave reasonably, set forward when international tensions wax, a constant reminder of how close we are to catastrophe. As you can probably infer from its title, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was created by, well, atomic scientists: this magazine started as a mimeographed newsletter circulated among the scientists working on the Manhattan Project, an intensive, four-year effort that culminated in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (The Bulletin is still published today, no longer in print form, since 2009, but on the web.) In the 70 years since its appearance, the mission of the Doomsday Clock has been slightly tweaked: it no longer refers specifically to the threat of nuclear war, but now signifies the likelihood of other doomsday scenarios as well, including climate change, global epidemics, and the unforeseen dangers posed by new technologies. The Ups and Downs of the Doomsday Clock One common misapprehension about the Doomsday Clock is that its updated in real time, like a stock-market ticker. In fact, the clock is only changed after meetings of the Bulletins advisory board, which happen twice a year (and even then, the decision is often  taken to keep the time as it is). In fact, the Doomsday Clock has only been set forward or back 22 times since 1947. Here are some of the most notable occasions when this has happened: 1949: Moved up to three minutes to midnight after the Soviet Union tests its first atomic bomb. 1953: Moved up to two minutes to midnight (the closest the Doomsday Clock has ever reached this mark) after the U.S. tests its first hydrogen bomb. 1963: Moved back to 12 minutes to midnight after the U.S. and the Soviet Union sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty. (One interesting side note: the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 started, and was resolved, in between meetings of the Bulletins advisory board. One imagines that if the clock had been reset during these seven tense days, it would have displayed a time of 30 or even 15 seconds to midnight.) 1984: Moved up to three minutes to midnight  as the Soviet Union is mired in war in Afghanistan and the U.S., under Ronald Reagan, deploys nuclear-tipped Pershing II missiles in western Europe. The international social fabric is further weakened by the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games and the Soviet boycott of the 1984 Olympic Games. 1991: Moved back to 17 minutes to midnight (the farthest away the clocks minute hand has ever been) after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 2007: Moved up to five minutes to midnight after North Korea tests its first atomic bomb; for the first time, the Bulletin also recognizes global warming (and the lack of firm action to counter it) as an imminent threat to civilization. 2017: Moved up to two  and one-half minutes to midnight (the closest the clock has been since 1953) following Donald Trumps tweets touting the U.S. nuclear arsenal  and the prospect of decreased legislative action to slow global warming. How Useful is the Doomsday Clock? As arresting an image as it is, its unclear just how much of an effect the Doomsday Clock has had on public opinion and international policy. Clearly, the clock had more of an impact in, say, 1953, when the prospect of a Soviet Union armed with hydrogen bombs conjured up images of World War III. Over the ensuing decades, though, one can argue that the Doomsday Clock has had more of a numbing than an inspiring effect: when the world is constantly a few minutes from global catastrophe, and the apocalypse never quite happens, most people will choose to ignore current events and focus on their daily lives. In the end, your faith in the Doomsday Clock will depend on your faith in the Bulletins high-powered advisory board and its network of professional experts. If you accept the evidence in favor of global warming and are alarmed by nuclear proliferation, youre likely to take the clock more seriously than those who dismiss these as relatively minor issues. But whatever your views, the Doomsday Clock at least serves as a reminder that  these problems need to be addressed, and hopefully soon.

Again with the Erosion of Income

Again with the Erosion of Income Tired of hearing about how writers are not getting paid? I imagine the writers needing to eat from that income arent. I had a quick unsubscribe of 19 readers within 30 minutes of releasing last Fridays newsletter. Some people do not want to hear that writing on the cheap is not a good thing, because its all they know how to do. People, listen. When pricing is the only factor, you will likely not have a long term relationship with someone. That means editor or reader. When people want to buy you cheap, thats their driving force. There is no LIKE in the factor. Dont make cheap a habit or that becomes your brand. Here are comments from readers that showed they understood the severity of this issue: I agree wholeheartedly that as writers we need to support one anothers efforts If more writers ignored these requests (**from editor for free writing), those markets would either have to find the funding to pay writers properly or realize that if they cant, then maybe they need to look closer at how well they run their businesses. When you give away your work or go for the easier low pay ones you subconsciously tell yourself that you are not good enough to get paid. Worse, getting into the poor or non-paying markets offers a false sense of success. The result of all of this is that you dont have any reason to improve your skills, which would get you into better paying markets. So, I was feeling a little under the weather, and gave my doctor a call. I asked him if he wouldnt mind seeing me for free, since it wouldnt really take much time and he was just fitting me in last minute anyway. Can you believe he turned me down? Claimed hed spent eight years in school, worked his ass off as an intern, was still paying off med school bills, yada yada yada. Well, Ive got options. I go down to the corner drugstore and ask my buddy the manager to give me some free meds. And he starts this whole rant about costs and staffing and insurance and he wouldnt give them to me. I figure, what the hell, Ill just suck it up and get to work. I call up one of my authors and tell him hes booked for a signing, and I promised twenty copies at authors price to the group. Told him I wont be paying him royalties on those. I mean, I cant work for nothing, right? Thank you for this! Ive turned down fabulous projects because of ridiculously low pay and said no to fabulous money because of ridiculous contract clauses. I would never treat anyone that poorly. Its up to each of us to do the right thing and say no. Were saying no for ourselves and for all writers. When we all say no, the low pay and egregious contract clauses would disappear overnight. Good smackdown, Hope. Im with you. If you give your work away, thats what your work is worth. In a race to the bottom, everyone drowns. I was reading an online article from The Guardian this morning on the widening gap between top earners in our industry and the rest of us (theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/15/earnings-soar-for-uks-bestselling-authors-as-wealth-gap-widens-in-books-industry). It was interesting, but much more interesting were the comments, which appear to have been from readers rather than writers. Not only do they not care, but they also think writers are in the wrong in complaining about how much (or rather, how little) they get paid. Definitely an issue for us to resolve in private rather than in public, Philip Pullmans recent action notwithstanding. (NOTE: Regarding that last comment, in case you didnt know, Philip Pullman, author of The Golden Compass, stepped down as patron from the Oxford Literary Festival because they were not paying writers to make appearances. Good man.) A festival organizer asked an acquaintance of mine for names as presenters. She gave them mine. But without me saying anything, she told me she understood my stance about being compensated, and shed let me have that conversation with them. Like I was the exception, but Ill take that reputation all day long. Wouldnt you like to be known as a decent writer who expects payment for their services, or rather someone who gives it away and can be easily had for free?