A New York Clock That Told Time Now Tells the Time Remaining (nytimes.com) 69
For more than 20 years, Metronome, which includes a 62-foot-wide 15-digit electronic clock that faces Union Square in Manhattan, has been one of the city's most prominent and baffling public art projects. Its digital display once told the time in its own unique way, counting the hours, minutes and seconds (and fractions thereof) to and from midnight. But for years observers who did not understand how it worked suggested that it was measuring the acres of rainforest destroyed each year, tracking the world population or even that it had something to do with pi. On Saturday Metronome adopted a new ecologically sensitive mission. From a report: Now, instead of measuring 24-hour cycles, it is measuring what two artists, Gan Golan and Andrew Boyd, present as a critical window for action to prevent the effects of global warming from becoming irreversible. On Saturday at 3:20 p.m., messages including "The Earth has a deadline" began to appear on the display. Then numbers -- 7:103:15:40:07 -- showed up, representing the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds until that deadline. As a handful of supporters watched, the number -- which the artists said was based on calculations by the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin -- began ticking down, second by second.
"This is our way to shout that number from the rooftops." Mr. Golan said just before the countdown began. "The world is literally counting on us." The Climate Clock, as the two artists call their project, will be displayed on the 14th Street building, One Union Square South, through Sept. 27, the end of Climate Week. The creators say their aim is to arrange for the clock to be permanently displayed, there or elsewhere. Mr. Golan said he came up with the idea to publicly illustrate the urgency of combating climate change about two years ago, shortly after his daughter was born. He asked Mr. Boyd, an activist from the Lower East Side, to work with him on the project.
"This is our way to shout that number from the rooftops." Mr. Golan said just before the countdown began. "The world is literally counting on us." The Climate Clock, as the two artists call their project, will be displayed on the 14th Street building, One Union Square South, through Sept. 27, the end of Climate Week. The creators say their aim is to arrange for the clock to be permanently displayed, there or elsewhere. Mr. Golan said he came up with the idea to publicly illustrate the urgency of combating climate change about two years ago, shortly after his daughter was born. He asked Mr. Boyd, an activist from the Lower East Side, to work with him on the project.
Re: (Score:1)
Unless Trump is being led out of the White House in an orange jump suit and doing the perp walk, I won't believe that he'll go quietly. He's hoping that HIS SCOTUS will declare Biden's victory null and void and that he can remain POTUS for life.
2 artists? (Score:3)
so, i am 100% on board the save our planet band wagon, but can someone help me understand how and why it takes 2 artists to come up with and implement an idea on an already existing installation that merely counts down the time until the "point of no return" of the mercator report on climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a better question, why not? You want to share a message why is the person who is sharing the message relevant?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a better question, why not?
Maybe because even a kid with downs could do it?
The "two artists" is just more marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
> Maybe because even a kid with downs could do it?
Maybe they were the only ones who went from idea to execution?
Re: (Score:2)
This is really STUPID (Score:2)
Good lord, this project is not merely stupid, it is completely misguided.
Look, there is no "this is the date (down to the hour, minute, and second?) by which we need to act". (and... "act" in what way, exactly? They think this is like the countdown timer in a thriller, where as long as we disarm the bomb with at least one second on the clock, everything's fine?)
Climate disruption is progressive and gradual. If we start working to lessen our impact at time T, we get less disruption than if we start at time
Re: (Score:2)
Good lord, this project is not merely stupid, it is completely misguided.
If you have a better idea of how to get more people interested in the idea that we're approaching a catastrophe then let's hear it. Until then that "stupid" idea is better than anything you've come up with so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because even a kid with downs could do it?
But did he? No. Neither did you for that matter. Does that mean that you or I are worse than a kid with downs? Or that maybe two artists came up with an idea to put climate change at the forefront through artistic expression in a way that you don't give a fuck about.
Climate change *is* a marketing problem. Exemplified here by the fact that the point of this art installation has resulted in someone just bitching about the profession of the people who came up with the idea.
Re:2 artists? (Score:5, Insightful)
so, i am 100% on board the save our planet band wagon
Common misconception: it's not about saving the planet. The planet will be just fine. It will find its new natural balance, evolution will do its thing, a couple ten- or hundred thousands years later there will be a new natural order of things, but probably without humans.
Because it's not about saving the planet but about saving the natural environment that hosted us and that enabled our human civilization to thrive. It's our civilization as we know it that's on the line, not the planet.
Nope...the clock better already be at ZERO (Score:1)
It hubris and folly to not just believe but act on the assumption that humans can STOP change. Change will happen ... no ... matter ... what.
I do not support any program whose stated goal is impossible, even if what some of the 'members' claim is the real goal is something "less impossible".
Earth's climate is ALWAYS changing, it always has and always will.
This is just advertising for power, control, and money.
Man is part of nature, affects nature and yes we should do reasonable more to minimize effects tha
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. The climate has always been changing... in cycles of hundred thousands to millions of years. Those are time frames that give most living creatures, animal and plant life, time to adapt.
We are changing the climate in fast-forward mode, within a century, by pumping carbon from safe underground storage into our atmosphere at ever increasing rates. That is not enough time for anything to adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
And "as we k
Re: (Score:2)
It will find its new natural balance, evolution will do its thing, a couple ten- or hundred thousands years later there will be a new natural order of things, but probably without humans.
Evolution takes time. There's a very good chance that the new order doesn't include most life as we know it, not just humans.
Re: (Score:2)
so, i am 100% on board the save our planet band wagon, but can someone help me understand how and why it takes 2 artists...
Did anyone ask how and why it took two girls and a cu...
Nevermind.
*gags*
Thanks, brain.
Re: 2 artists? (Score:2)
I also am onboard with doing what we can to protect and improve the environment. China's newly announced intention to reduce emissions I see is a big step in that direction, if they hold to it.
What I see here is the removal of an objective, if confusing, source of information. It is being replaced with a count down to what is simply some future date selected to represent some possible, but highly unlikely, event. Complete bs marketing of a theory, nothing more.
I would love to know more. (Score:3)
If only Slashdot could adopt a policy of not linking paywalled articles.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Free content isn't free; it serves the interests of those who sponsor it.
users who get fed adverts?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:1)
What can be done within 7 years? We eliminated clean power (nuclear) in the 80s and 90s and it takes at least 20 years to build it back.
Even if we completely eliminated all emissions today in the US, it would have an impact of less than 0.15 degrees by 2100, although most economists would concede that it would increase emissions since humans would want to survive somehow.
The problem we need to solve is clean, stable and compact energy production. Small localized and self-regulating nuke plants and hydro for
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I wonder how much fossil fuel generated electricity that clock is going to use over the next 7 years. I hope that they're planning on planting some trees to offset that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What can be done within 7 years?
it takes at least 20 years to build it back.
What *can* be done? A lot *can* be done. It would take at least 20 years with feet-dragging like the status-quo. That's not exactly doing something. But nuclear isn't the answer. Consumption must go down. No more people uselessly driving multi-ton machines back and forth all day, all at the same time, so that it uses 3x as much fuel. No more offices buildings using 40kW per floor for lighting, another 150kW per floor for temperature control, etc. What *can* we do? A lot. Roughly 80% of all energy usage is a
Re: (Score:1)
so basically appoint you the dictator so you can decide what people should do and how people should live. Do we call you Stalin Jr?
Re: (Score:2)
On the bright side, 7 years from now we'll be having this exact same discussion, with another arbitrary "deadline" a few more years out. It's already been happening for several decades with deadline after deadline coming and going, and never a single one of them accurate. Why would this time be any different?
Ha Ha, Artists... (Score:1, Insightful)
Ok let me get this straight, this is an artists rendition of a count down clock to the "irreversible" effects of global warming. Wow, how powerful we humans are.
So using the same science, us humans have only been on the scene for a blip in the age of the earth. So we will do irreversible harm and the planet will never be the same? A few hundred thousand years will change a thing or two. Lets say it correctly. The earth will be less likely to sustain "the current" life forms and plants that grow today,
Re: (Score:2)
What I find funny is this is just some people wearing a sandwich board sign ringing the bell shouting "Repent! The end is near!" Only it's a digital board on a building telling us when it will all end.
In a nuclear-armed world, The End, is only about 30 minutes away at any given time.
What I find funny, is you assuming it would take a powerful force such as Nature, to destroy man. No. We're stupid enough to do that shit on our own, and a lot faster than you think.
Re:Ha Ha, Artists... (Score:5, Insightful)
us humans have only been on the scene for a blip in the age of the earth. So we will do irreversible harm and the planet will never be the same?
Quite probably. We are transforming millions of years worth of sequestered carbon into greenhouse gases in a very short time frame. It takes a lot of energy to heat up the interior of a car, but a small amount of energy can roll up the windows and let the sun take it from there.
Lets say it correctly. The earth will be less likely to sustain "the current" life forms and plants that grow today, including humans.
Yes, and here's a shocker for you: as a human I care about human life being able to sustain. I don't care one bit about the fact that the rock that is under our feet will endure even if we should kill off every last fauna on the planet. No one who says 'says the earth' is literally saying they believe the rock is at risk but it is a bit more simple to say than "please save the current ecosystem in which we are able to survive and flourish from changing into an ecosystem we may be unable to withstand"
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a lot of energy to heat up the interior of a car, but a small amount of energy can roll up the windows and let the sun take it from there.
1. On a gasoline powered car that heat is "free" since the engine produces it whether you want it or not.
2. Usually I want to heat the interior of my car is when it's too cold outside and the sun is not enough to even melt the ice from the windshield.
3. Conversely, when there is too much sun, I have to use AC which takes energy to remove heat from the car.
Car Analogy (Score:1)
I think you missed the point of the obligatory slashdot car analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I guess I was too sleepy to fully understand the post.
Here's a thought - if CO2 is the problem, shouldn't paper recycling be banned?
Trees convert CO2 into solid matter, however, after a while the tree growth slows down. So, cut those trees and plant new ones. The wood from those trees should not be burned (releasing the CO2), but instead people can build houses etc from it, make paper and then bury the used paper in a landfill. Or just bury the excess wood anyway.
Unless cutting down a tree and making p
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. I don't know frankly how much a difference paper recycling makes nowadays one way or the other. One key is *which* lumber is cut. It is probably ill advised to go clearcutting some rainforest, but if our demand for lumber and paper can be met with farmed trees, then it might be better to bury discarded paper than to try to recycle it. I wonder if this was more a critical issue when paper was the medium for data storage. I don't have the data to really say but I'd be open to believing points supportin
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if pulping paper in recycling is lower energy than pulping wood, in which case the recycling would make sense for the energy savings mattering more than the sequestration of discarding the paper.
It could still be worth it if that energy comes from a source that produces less CO2 than the tree has taken (getting negative CO2 emissions as a result).
I think they fixate on CO2 because CO2 emitters are more common. Also, it looks to me like the environment-group is using global warming to force lifestyle changes on people instead of just trying to reduce the global warming. For example, they want people to use public transport instead of personal cars (even if the cars are electric - "oh but they stand
Re: (Score:2)
So we will do irreversible harm and the planet will never be the same?
Oh no, the physical planet will be fine, it's not going to explode. The concern is how habitable it will be. If it gets bad enough to kill off all humans I'm sure it would recover within a few hundred years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If AGW is significant and a real problem, then you can blame the people that are pushing the idea for the lack of trust in the idea. This is but one example of how laughable the claims have been.
The AOC doomsday clock still has about ten years l (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait. They're not scientists or economists. They're "artists" and "activists." How do I put this politely? Here goes: back in school, it was generally the stupid kids who into that sort of thing. If it wasn't a concocted climate catastrophe, then it was UFOs, healing crystals, or celebrity gossip that occupied their time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you misunderstand.
If an artist is on the fearmongering side, you're supposed to listen to them, they know exactly what they're talking about.
If a scientist questions the religion though you must call them a heretic, not listen to anything they say, and repent for your sins.
If climate were scientific, it would have a lot more respect. But there's no scientific method involved, it's 100% religion at this point.
Seems about as useful... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
...as the US National Debt clock.
Well it would seem that the real goal is to get people talking about it. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Seems about as useful... as the US National Debt clock."
Well, no.
The debt clock is actually based on FACT and it doesn't try PREDICT anything. It presents objective information that can be used for whatever purpose you might have/need.
On the other hand, a "doomsday climate countdown" is based on conjecture, not fact. Many, many such "doom and gloom" predictions have already been made with dates that have passed without doom and gloom.
Your clock is off (Score:2)
It's already too late [slashdot.org]. It can't be reversed. So we all might as well jump in our bro-trucks, roll a little coal and enjoy the end of civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
On the bright side, it's been too late every year for the past several decades, I doubt that will change anytime soon.
One of the artists has a Masters in whining (Score:1, Insightful)
One of the artists, Gan Golan, during Occupy DC activities in Washington in 2015 dressed as the "Master of Degrees," holding a ball and chain representing his college loan debt.
Gan Golan is a New York Times bestselling author, artist and agitator, his books include the smash hit Goodnight Bush and the critically acclaimed The Adventures of Unemployed Man. As an artist, he has designed rock music posters for Erykah Badu, Queen Latifah, Willie Nelson, Nick Cave, Ben Harper and Henry Rollins. According to the
Re: (Score:1)
What does science have to do with climate change? It would be far better compared to religion than science.
You mean the time Remaining Until (Score:2)
The last person with a positive net worth leaves NYC.
Bishop Ussher (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Ussher deduced that the first day of creation fell upon, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar
At least Ussher did not claim to know it to the second.
Re: (Score:2)
These two people are ignoring science and just putting up stuff because they wanted to.
The end is nigh! No really, we're SURE this time! (Score:1)
As far as I calculate, that would be Jan 03, 2028, 0700 NY time.
I've posted a reminder, given myself a 15 minute lead time, in case the world is actually ending.
But really, I sort of now can't wait to get that reminder, come back to this post, and point out what fucking idiots you are.
Hint: eschatological doomsayers have been a long, long time thing in human culture. Usually they've cloaked it in whatever faddish mythology is prevalent at the time: Christian religion, the number of the year, mystical astro
Idiots making predictions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)