What does this even mean in a non-teleological universe?
Wait, what does this even mean even in a teleological universe?
The actual position of the clock is not intended to be an accurate measurement of any kind.
Okay. I'll be exactly that much concerned about it.
No, but if they publish in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" that cheeseburgers are better than salads, then they do, indeed, need a disclaimer.
And if they're the materially-reductionistic variety of scientists (i.e. Philosophical rather than Methodological Naturalists), the cheeseburger is mammal-on-mammal genocide, so that should be explained as well.
I am equating the two precisely because they are equally psudoscience, regardless of the source. The Appeal to Authority Fallacy doesn't apply any better because the authority is "atomic scientists" when the claim has nothing to do with any valid methodology of science.
And I'm not at all claiming it's unimportant. It's very important. It's just that from your worldview, Climate Change being true or not, nuclear annihilation being true or not, you personally will be nonexistent within 120 years, guaranteed, going by your worldview or mine. And going by mine, I will still be existent regardless of the outcome of those "threats". You have no possible useful resolution to your global issues, I do. That doesn't mean the issue isn't important.
how is this wrong?
Is it more accurately said that we are a "half-hour from Doomsday", five minutes, or 10 seconds?
Please provide specific scientific rationales differentiating these possibilities and the respective evidence for each as being most accurate.
To use the common parlance, this claim is "not even wrong".
If it is being presented by the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", and they aren't claiming it's science, it needs a disclaimer.
Which won't be happening.
Make some arbitrary metric from an infinite series of divisible time units, politicize it, and call it "science".
And no, "advancing" the "clock" is hardly an unprecedented event.
And people call eschatology a dubious methodology.
I get it exactly.
I don't care who considers me "worth informing", nobody controls my actual value now or in the future.
Nor yours, except you are apparently too weak psychologically to handle reality, and thus your main point here appears to be to say I'm "delusional" as a random target, then pointlessly going on about it with explicitly no suggested path to improvement to the circumstance you find yourself in.
I am not treating it as a game. You are. One you've decided there is no alternative but for you to lose, inevitably and permanently. There is you "we" you keep referring to regarding this, in any respect.
Let's constrain ourselves to what you know then.
You have a view on whether government is to serve the citizens, or the citizens are to serve government--and you (presumably) have a vote.
You're free to conjecture it's "optimism", along with many others having your basis for analysis.
However, ultimately, everything done by everyone is known.
Because, speaking long-term, they'll simply be forced to, or admit they never had any.
Much of the excitement we get out of our work is that we don't really know what we are doing. -- E. Dijkstra