The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and the scientists from the University of Chicago who helped develop the first atomic weapons. In 1947 the Bulletin created the Doomsday Clock. The clock is designed as a warning to humanity on how close the planet it to an apocalyptic event. The closer the clock is to midnight, the more likely a large-scale catastrophic incident is likely to happen.
The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board along with its board of sponsors (which the Bulletin’s website likes to point out includes 13 Nobel laureates) set the clock each year. The time has remained unchanged from 2020 and is the closest to midnight it has ever been – 100 seconds to midnight. This fact, in itself, is alarming. And, when combined with how our lives have been impacted by COVID, it is easy to be overwhelmed by fear and despair.
However, before we fall into too much despair, know that there are several, well regarded critics of the clock. One of its most recognised critics is cognitive psychologist, Steven Pinker, who points out that the clock doesn’t align with any actual risk indicators. He maintains that time on the clock seems to reflect how much the Bulletin desires to scare people; which right now appears to be a lot. Pinker’s criticism is even more pertinent if one considers that the clock’s purpose, according to its founder, is “to preserve civilization by scaring men into rationality.”
Similarly, Anders Sandberg from the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford claims that the clock’s list of threats to humanity are overwhelming. The threats, according to Sandberg, are more likely to lead to paralysis than coherent policy. Which, once you’ve read the Doomsday Clock letter to the leaders and citizens of the world, seems like a fair conclusion.
So, who should we listen to, the clock or the scientists who criticise the clock? And the clock is only one example of how confusing and how at odds our scientists and leaders are about what is true in the world.
The battle for ownership of truth
There appear to be three forces attempting to seize the monopoly on truth. On one side we have science and academia, claiming that empirical evidence and rationality will define what it true for the entire universe – they just need enough time. However, even within the scientific field, consensus and agreement on most topics is rare. On the other side we have anti-intellectualism, demanding that the elites cannot hold a monopoly on truth, and that uninformed opinions are worthy of attention – think Donald Trump and ‘alternative facts’. And finally, we have news media who claim to share all the facts we need to know to stay informed of what is happening in the world. This is despite the the fact news outlets have evolved to be as partisan as our political parties.
I mention three forces. There are others. Politicians, government institutions, religious leaders, businesses, social media influencers, NGO’s – they are all looking to tell us the ‘truth’. However, for the most part the trust in these people and organisations have been eroded to the point where they no longer carry any consequence in the outcome for the battle for truth.
Knowing who the players are is important, but it doesn’t serve us in understanding who is worth listening to. There is another way that might lead us to more clarity.
How did people come by the truth in the past?
Michel Foucault wrote Madness and Civilisation in 1961. In it he lays out how madness or mental illness was dealt with in middle ages all the way through to the end of the 18th Century. In his book Foucault claims that during the middle ages people who suffered from mental illness could wander around freely. Their families were responsible for their wellbeing, and in many cases villagers and neighbours would help in caring for these souls. However, this charitable support was helped along by the view that people who suffered from mental illness were gifted and able to see things others couldn’t. They could tell people of happenings in other parts of the world and predict future events. According to Foucault, it was only during the Renaissance that people suffering from mental illness started being stigmatised and persecuted; forced to stay hidden from civil society.
While many question Foucault’s research for this book, and some accuse him of selectively picking references that supported his hypothesis, what the above does tell us is that during the Middle Ages people were hungry for news, and they sought it wherever they could find a credible (and sometimes, incredible) source.
Along with the mad, people also had messengers who were often sent by Kings and Queens to spread the word of developments that were deemed worth knowing. Gossip and word-of-mouth were also effective in keeping a population informed of what was happening. Along with soothsayers and the clergy, everything anyone wanted to know in the 12th Century had a source.
The point is that news 800 years ago was gathered from myriad sources. And based on the information to hand, people discussed and gossiped and agreed on a common truth. Truth was learnt by listening and then through discussion or gossip. That’s what we’re missing today, discussion, debate. We are fed information like lab rats and told they are facts. And it is easier to believe the information we have is right than to go out and debate with our neighbours in order to test our beliefs.
Perhaps the truth is we can’t go back to simpler times. Perhaps the hose of the 24 hour news cycle can’t be turned off, and we no longer have the time to share and debate ideas with our neighbours. And maybe, that’s the problem.
The answer starts with the act of listening
In 2007 Nelson Mandela brought together a group of elder statesmen, peace activists and human rights advocates and started a non-governmental organisation called, The Elders. The aim of the group was to bring together their collective experience to work on solutions that would address the biggest problems facing our planet. I always liked that idea. Some of the greatest humanitarians being called upon, long after their careers have passed, to help us again with their wisdom and humanity.
However, I would expand the group a little. I have given this much thought. When it comes to knowing what goes on in the world, I do want to hear what the humanitarian elders have to say. But I also want to hear what artists are seeing in the world, for artists are the ones who examine the world in detail.
And then I want to include some counsellors and psychotherapists, because they deal with and understand the mental anxieties we as people experience in just being alive in today’s world. I would also include doctors, who deal with the sick to inform us of how our physical bodies are coping with the strains of life as we know it.
And we should listen to women, and children, and the aged, because they deserve to be listened to, and we have much to learn from them. Add to the list, refugees, people who are persecuted, criminals, bar tenders, waiters, teachers, mothers and fathers. We should hear what they have to say, also.
Judges, nurses, sewerage workers, police women and men – we need them as well.
In fact, I am starting to believe that the truth that everyone is fighting to own is not all that important. What is more important is the reality of how our neighbours, our colleagues and our family and friends are managing and dealing with life.
The reason we don’t know who is telling the truth anymore is because we have stopped listening to other people. And in the act of no longer listening we have lost the ability to recognise and value the stories that matter. People ask us how we are, and we lie and say, ‘fine’. Which in reality is a superficial and slightly dishonest interaction.
I believe truth, humanity and compassion are inextricably linked. If we’re unable to recognise the humanity in others, or show them compassion in their darkest moments, how can we expect to ever arrive at anything resembling the truth when other people are involved?
I struggle with this, being open and vulnerable with others. In many cases it takes more self-esteem to share my truth than I can muster. But I have to keep reminding myself; the truth worth knowing is laced with vulnerability and dripping with courage. Being told the truth takes telling the truth.
Nobody ever grew wise from listening, watching or reading the news.