The biggest question, of course, is this. At a time when we’ve seen the limitations of polling and modelling exposed again and again, why should we believe what the Doomsday Clock is telling us? The Bulletin does not reveal its methodology and does not explain how it reaches its conclusions, other than to say that its science and security board of 13 men and six women, many of them Nobel laureates, meet twice a year to discuss global events in a deliberative manner.

But to equate the clock with the kind of pandemic modelling that Sage and others have been doing is to compare apples and oranges on two counts. The first is that the clock is neither forecast nor model; it’s a snapshot and, if it influences government policy (which it definitely aims to do all around the world), it does so in broad long-term ways rather than immediate and detailed policy measures.

The second is that pandemic modelling usually offers several different scenarios, though the media tend to lead on the worst-case ones because the headline numbers make for better copy. The clock does not give various options and does not lend itself to spin. It picks a time and explains why.

No matter how alarming that time may seem, it’s crucial to remember something which Langsdorf baked into her original design: that the clock can move back as well as forwards and it can do so not merely because leaders may make wise decisions, but also because citizens can ensure political responsibility by mobilising, engaging and exerting public pressure.

This may seem counterintuitive at a time when the threats the clock is enumerating are broader, deeper, more complex and more intertwined than ever. Imagine standing in 1992, the Cold War won and Francis Fukuyama confidently proclaiming “the end of history”. Only the very imaginative and far-sighted would have been able to predict all the issues with which we’re currently dealing.

Now fast forward another 30 years of change faster and more profound than we’ve ever known. The 2052 Doomsday Clock will almost certainly have to take into account transhumanism, widespread AI, lunar and Martian terraforming, widespread climate emergencies and consequent social unrest and so on. From this distance these seem daunting, even insurmountable. But the Bulletin’s ethos has always been that, if mankind has created these problems, then mankind can fix them. And for all our sakes, we need them to be right about that.