Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:List of predictions of the end of the world

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



Am I correct in observing a post-Covid outbreak slowdown in end-of-the-world prediction production...[edit]

or am I just seeing what I want to see? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

Have 3×10to41 st century as a header, but 3×10to43 in the text - two very different 'large numbers.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Question[edit]

What is it in human nature that makes people come up with 'the end of the world is nigh' predictions (as distinct from 'reasonably scientific possibilities)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Perhaps a wee lack of intelligence and a wee need for attention? LeucippusTalk 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
In many cases, it seems to be just greed for money and power (followers). E.g., see multiple offender Harold Camping. Give me all your money now because the world will end next month! Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed they’d be pretty callous to just sit by—to not warn you— that the end is ‘nigh’. LeucippusTalk 19:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I think there's some narcissism in the mix as well. Of the 13.8 billion years the universe has existed, the next 5 or so I'm personally experiencing must be special. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
There are 'ancient world and later' predictions (though Fimbul Winter, and possibly a few others, had a logical basis).

To what extent do people 'want to be frightened'? Anna Livia (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Let us be smoted[edit]

This group of predictions. Anna Livia (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A lot of hot air[edit]

Does this belong here or somewhere else (and can someone explain how the CO2 sends heat into outer space). Anna Livia (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be NASA's official piece on it, and this (linked in the aforementioned piece) looks to be the study in question. From the piece and a brief skim of the study, I don't see any prediction for an end of the world or really much of a mention about some sort of apocalypse. Heck, the piece even says "the sky isn’t falling". Overall, I don't think it belongs here. Igon Value Problem might want a word, though. DietMondrian (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I was referencing the header.
I know just enough science to see that the article is confused/confusing (and the newspaper does have 'a particular viewpoint'). Anna Livia (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I looked at some other science-related stories linked from the first article which are likewise from the Daily Express, and it looks like they're simply the sorts to use clickbait headlines and practice "yellow science journalism". --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
'As such' is the DE article mission-worthy? (I do understand that the atmosphere is slowly leaking away 'for a variety of scientific reasons which are readily understandable by generalists.') Anna Livia (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that by itself, it's just another thing that could be listed on WIGO:CLOGS and described there 'as such'. But it could add to other things as one example, perhaps mainly in the DE article on how they do their science reporting, if interesting enough. More commonly, it seems DE writes a fairly sober and accurate short text without anything dramatic and then, in the headline they lie that scientists are baffled, stunned, or alarmed. For example, on another topic, a dramatic headline on no problem and the recent trend becoming a bit less dramatic without reversing. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
'Scientists predict End of the World due to Daily Express headlines'. 'This is happening (long time, no obvious impact)' is not newsworthy 'This is happening (we can do nothing about it) - start panicking' is. Anna Livia (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Possible future Ig Nobel Prize-winning paper? "Prediction of Future Trends using Data Mining and analysis goes Haywire When Data sourced From Tabloid Headlines". --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
ApooftGnegiol put it better than I could, and adding it to WIGO:CLOGS is better than my idea. Daily Express#Modern actually already talks about their sensationalist headlines for science articles and their tendency to portend Doomsday, so someone could probably mention in there right now. (As a side note, we could probably split that into a couple of sections. It's quite a long passage!) As for the article, to me, while the title proclaims Doomsday, the actual text reads more "this is concerning" than "the end is nigh". It describes something problematic, but it doesn't quite extrapolate that into how it could end life. DietMondrian (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The headline is within RW's remit 'somewhere', while 'some atoms and molecules are going to go into space (atmospheric equivalent of evaporation, solar and cosmic radiation knocking them out of the atmosphere etc)', others are coming to Earth (in the space through which Earth travels, and fragments of meteor(ite)s and comets etc').
Put the reference wherever suits - and perhaps an article/section on 'Tabloid Science' (from 'scientific statements extrapolated', flesh eating bugs and all, to 'creative weird clickbait and fantasy.') should be added to the list of articles for someone else to write. Anna Livia (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)