Talk:List of predictions of the end of the world/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 18 December 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

copyright

"Copyright © 1997 to 2010 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance"
Let's link to it rather than copy-paste. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed, building our own list afresh. Though that list would be good for reference, particularly as a guide to what we're missing - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we still have a link to that list? And I think this could have a better title, like the thing that is bolded in the lead. ħuman 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an external link now. And yeah, "end of the world" is probably better as a title - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Or failed apocalyptic predictions. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It extends to future ones - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion is that they will also fail. I'd be prepared to put money on it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fool! I will so collect when the hadrons decay - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The last one is probably accurate within a few hundred orders of magnitude. Also, thanks for the rename. ħuman 01:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fitting in predictions with no specific time

The Heaven's Gate cult predicted the end of the world, but as far as I'm aware they were never any more specific than "soon". It would presumably have been in the 90s - given their suicide so their souls could quickly evacuate the planet by joining an alien spaceship that was claimed to be in the neighbourhood at the time. Any suggestions on how that could fit in? I could put it in under 1997, but it's not entirely clear. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, their mass suicide was in 1997 because they believed the UFO that would rescue them from the coming earth catastrophes was trailing right behind the Hale-Bopp comet. But I don't know when, exactly, they predicted the end of the world. Anyone? Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there may be some confusion in some items in this list between when then prediction was made and when the world was predicted to end.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Like for example: "2008: Sarah Palin: believes she is of the "Final Generation" and will see the End Times during her lifetime." In this case 2008 is when the prediction was made rather then when the world is going to end. The GW Bush one is sort of similar - though this one is not really even "the end of the world". --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The first David Wilkerson prediction listed for 1973, for one, wasn't for any specific year. It was made in his 1973 book The Vision. The later two were more specific. Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

footnotes

this is all bullshit without footnotes for each date/claim. jehovah's witnesses end of the world 4 times in a row? What is the source? ħuman 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just added a few. Someone with more expertise on the J.W.'s will have to work on those. On a separate matter: should we be including predictions of things like economic depression that aren't really the end of the world? I just added Strauss & Howe, and there are several Pat Robertson and David Wilkerson prophecies of depression listed already. It occurs to me we could easily fill the list with stuff like Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990 but should we? Or keep this limited to second coming, rapture, armageddon type stuff? Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should stick to stuff that's actually about the end of the world. Armageddon and Second Coming count, Great Depression doesn't. That said, the predictions of economic doom would also make a fine list - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mostly the article links themselves - I started the list from stuff that's in other articles on RW. But yeah, cites good - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We should also try to use cites from the end of the world predictors themselves. Rather than other people saying they said it. Though that might be difficult, not to say impossible, in some cases.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for reformat

As I mentioned above there is confusion in this list between when the prediction was made and when the prediction is/was supposed to happen. I propose therefore that it be reformatted into:

• Who made. When made. Proposed EoW date. Outcome.

In true RW style I assume that the "outcome" column will be "nothing happened" or something of that nature. Thoughts?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good. Also, while I think the "proton death" of the universe is funny, we should also include the ~5 billion year prediction of the sun becoming a red gianty thing and swallowing the Earth. ħuman 18:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there are potentially lots of science type ones. Though it may rather depend on what you mean by "The end of the world". Does it mean: (a) the end of humanity (b) the end of all life on earth (c) the end of the planet earth or (d) the end of the universe. I'd be inclined to not put them in this article at all but put them in their own "Real end of the world" article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick look here, here and here has lots of on-mission stuff from the dotty to the plausible.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Science type" ones should be fun. How many times would the LHC be on there? ^sshole 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another prediction

The end of the world/universe occurs when 'the proverbial someone' hits the rewind button/'start next game' icon. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening quote

The Matthew 24:35-36 quote up the top is almost the KJV I linked to, but not entirely. What is it? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 09:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably some pantywaist modern liberal twisting of the Lord's words. Now KJV, that being the version most English-speaking Christianity-based doomsayers will have been inspired by - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusion

This article confuses "nutty" end of the world with "real" end of the world. It also fails to define "End of the world". So it could be good but really fails because it doesn't know what it's tying to do.--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "end of the world" is really well defined by any specific conspiracy or prediction. Some suggest it's just civilisation getting sent back to the stone age, others suggest Total Existence Failure. But perhaps a line to that effect at the top could help. ^moral 14:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How about moving it to Catastrophic predictions?--"Shut up, Brx." 14:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"End of the world" is the most common term, it doesn't really help us to rename it like that. ^pathetic 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

When it's woo being pushed, the woo being pushed is "the end of the world", so call it that - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As it is, it fails to fully differentiate between the "woo world end" and the "scientific world end". Putting them in the same article implicitly gives them the same validity. Sure, you'd need to believe in woo to believe that, but ...

Furthermore, while the article title is fine we should probably define EOW world better, or explore in greater depth what is meant by it. Off the top of my head it could mean:

The second coming of Jesus.

The end of human civilisation.

The end of biological life on Earth.

The end of the physical existence of the planet earth.

The physical end of the universe.

The closure of the servers which power rational wiki.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That last will happen after the end of the world, when quantum fluctuations generate a Boltzmann brain containing the entire contents of the wiki - with one spelling error - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

According to a letter in the newspaper Ragnarök will begin when Yggdrasil the world ash starts dying... and we now have ash die back.

As there are numberous variations on TV quiz shows, competitive spelling/cooking/other programs, perhaps there could be a predictive equivalent - celebrity prophet face off (but what would the penalties for failure be?) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

'Catastrophic predictions' is ambiguous. 81.159.115.123 (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Darn you, Wikipedia

Way better than ours too. I suppose we could crib furiously. - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Apocalypse 2013

Key points so far for anyone wishing to create the (spoof) article

In February

• The remains of Richard III are discovered (possibly linked with the discovery of undeclared horsemeat in food across Europe).
• Benedict XVI resigns - to see how Malachi's predictions will pan out.
• The Vatican is simultaneously hit by lightning.
• There is a meteorite strike on Russia.

Add to taste. 81.159.115.123 (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The apocalypse will come

Pi days after Pope Sixtus LXVI is elected. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively when the 'infinite typing monkeys' get sufficiently bored, and type out the complete works of Shakespeare, the Bible, and all the books requested on Desert Island Discs and then go and do something interesting. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

I fact-tagged this because the citations only establish that she "pals around" with end timers, not that she believes it. Here are the cites:

• The End Times and Sarah Palin
• When atheists attack!

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The comet cometh

So says Yahoo [1].

But [2] is more plausible. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

40 millionth century

For a 'sneak preview' see here [3]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Should

We really be listing every time an asteroid might legitimately come close? That seems a bit dismissive of actual things that can and have happened to be listing them with bullshit predictions like the great dissapointment and world war 3 . --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is dismissive. The possibility of demonstrably real cataclysmic natural disasters may be part of what prompts the bullshit predictions. That, and a need for drama surrounding the one doing the predicting. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

it still doesn't mean we need ti list them with the Bullshit, with no indication that it is actually possible. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 18:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I see the supportable catastrophes as establishing context for the fantastic ones. Maybe a named group of references for the reality-based predictions? They would all take the reader to a single explanatory footnote, saying something like "this one is consistent with methodological naturalism" if better wording is unobtainable.

If the RW audience contains a significant proportion of the credulous doofus kind who have a hard time telling the difference, then I weep for humanity. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be useful to split into two "lists" - but having both on the same Page - the "Scientific/Reality" and "Religious/Fantasy" inspired "prophecies". If on the same page, an extra small denoting column perhaps?

The "Religious" ones appear to be endless, and endlessly revised "dues to changing circumstances or calculations" :-), eg ... http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/christian-group-says-the-world-will-be-permanently-annihilated-on-wednesday/ 60.242.247.177 (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

1000 AD

I thought the end of 999 AD/start of 1000 AD was widely believed to be an impending end of the world thing but found an article saying that's a myth.[4] I don't know if we should include this anyway. Annquin (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Supposed update on the 'big rip'

According to this Article on the express the big rip can ouccur as early as in 2.8 billion years (according to Diego Sáez-Gómez from university of Lisbon, Portugal). Towards the end of the article it also said that :

"his team also found that this may never happen and that the universe may die as a result of a heat death, which would see all the stars die out and everything will drift apart."

I found a number of other sources claiming, pretty much, the same thing about Mr. Gómez and his finding. Should this possibility be added to the article?

(On a side note, for some reason, I find it slightly amusing how a vast number of people in the comments are unsatisfied with this prediction).--WMS (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Analysing 'the world will end soon books

What arrangements has the author made for claiming royalties - large advance/payment on publication/standard rules, and #what are they spending the money on# - luxury, entertainment, dissipation, and excess, or banking it. Unless they claim up front and spend promptly, disbelieve them. 109.153.101.255 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Another date

Can be found here [5] 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional dates

• http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm
• http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php
• http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1975.php

Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You know, the world is such a dick, it seems to "tell his friends" that's it's going kaputt tomorrow, in a week, yesterday. Its friends, worried about the wellbeing of their beloved friend, start preaching about its funeral to make sure that as many people can come to pay money respects for the poor bastard. However, the world just carries on doing what it normally does and its friends are laughed at for trying to help. Goddamn you, cruel world, if only you were sincere for once in you life (which surprisingly ends every other day).--WMS (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The end of the world as we know it

will be caused by a surfeit of end of the world predictions (and, possibly, lampreys). 86.191.125.150 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

2039 Joke

Added (Joke) after the 2039 entry because of someone off wiki who is scared by it and didn't see the joke. I know it's a bit clumsy but helping scared people surely is the priority) Robertinventor (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has reversed the edit. Can you discuss here? I mean - it is a joke presumably? The page you link to doesn't have 2039 anywhere on it, and it links to the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy page. If it is a joke and meant as a dry form of humour, in my experience people who are scared of the end of the world are not well tuned to that dry form of humour and they take it seriously and get scared. If it is not a joke, then it needs more detail. I'm trying to reassure someone right now that it is a joke. If you can't say it on the page itself, I'd appreciate it if someone replies here to say that it is a joke. Thanks! Robertinventor (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Just checked the history, @Koidevelopment you say "We don't need to put 'joke' after an entry, because they're all jokes". No they are not. This is a rational wiki in joke if I understand right. But the others are prophecies by people who are serious about it. Others may laugh and treat it as a joke, but they don't, they believe their prophecies. 8,000,000th century later in the page is a scientific prediction. The reader needs to be able to know if it is an in joke, a prophecy, a scientific prediction, or what it is. Or is RationalWiki only meant for use by people who already know that the things here are nonsense? If you can't do it on the page, please say here that it is a joke so that people like me trying to help scared people can point to the comment. Thanks! Robertinventor (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There are people who're scared by some of these? I can definitively say that no, Nibiru and the great tribulation and the HHGTTG ones are not real. I mean, c'mon, it's a reference to the HHGTTG. It's a novel. As for the ones past the 22^nd century, your friend need not be scared. He or she won't even be alive for those. No need to worry about them. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 03:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I got involved in other things. Yes people do get scared. You wouldn't believe how scared they get. I'm contacted often by people who have been on medication for their anxiety about Nibiru and such like. Some have felt suicidal. Though it hasn't happened to me, I've heard from others who were contacted by people actually contemplating suicide and reasoned them out of it, helped them not to kill themselves. David Morrison (of NASA "Ask an Astrobiologist") says that he was told of people who had committed suicide. There is a definite case of a young girl from Bath in the UK who killed herself in 2012 out of fear of end of the world - it is mentioned in her obituary. And there are many who wake up every day, scared that the world is about to end. I don't know how many, whether its hundreds, thousands or more, but enough so I've had a fair number of conversations trying to reassure them. Sometimes it takes months to years to get them to calm down enough to realize it is all hoax / joke / nonsense / BS / people making money out of their fear. There are youtube channels that publish "Nibiru about to cause devastation on Earth" videos many times a month that have estimated ad earnings of thousands of dollars a month. Also people who sell survival gear to those who are scared of Nibiru and of course all the books. It's a whole minor industry and I'm trying to do my bit to reassure and help the people who find my book and articles. I'm author of a book "Doomsday Debunked" (available to read online for free, and on kindle, the occasional kindle earnings go to suicide prevention charities) and there are several facebook groups set up just to help these people, as their only purpose, I know of four such, and I also do a debunking doomsday blog with articles that they say help them a lot. All about stories that with a bit of background in science and often not even that, just some training in checking sources, e.g. if they say someone is murdered for speaking out about Nibiru, to know to go and look up his obituary and check that he died of throat cancer. Many people don't know to do that and don't know how to do that. Robertinventor (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

2033

Has nobody suggested this date yet (2000 years since the claimed execution of the claimed Jesus Christ (or someone else of the same name somewhere else and the calendar is wrong besides). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I hear it's the date the nukes come down and we're all forced to take shelter in the metro system -- not from the radiation, mind you, but from... um, solar-powered radioactive mutants, or something. (Despite that a nuclear winter would leave the surface just as dark and lifeless as underground areas logically should've been.) ~ ♥ 18:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that the 'Western calendar is wrong' (but Bede did reasonably well under the circumstances) and both the Gregorian and Julian calendars are in use in 'the West' (along with a few others generally) - the reason all these predictions fail is because 'a calendar paradox' is created and thus a prediction is caught in temporal snarl-ups. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of the nuts use, and predict with the Gregorian calendar, so it's a relatively harmless inconsistency--Spoony (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

But 'the end of the world generator' is likely to suffer acute paradox-itis: which is the correct date for the end of days. And then 'the cosmic fortune cookie distributors' hand out another set of predictions and the arguments start all over again. 86.146.99.1 (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Apocalypse Bingo/Drinking game

Can someone develop the Apocalypse version of the RationalWiki drinking game?

1. Biblical quotes (with some means of allowing for 'zillions of references')
2. Planetary billiards (Nibiru, Planet X, Immanuel Velikovsky, Return of the DinoAsteroid etc)
3. 'Other orbiting natural bodies' (comet, meteor, asteroid)
4. Return of Jesus etc
5. Dates (being inedible numbers)
6. Numbers games/hunt the letter
7. Aliens/cryptozoology
8. The Beast (not being A Crowley)
9. 'We are all going to the dogs ([6] and similar).

Any other signs? Anna Livia (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

USA Today runs a knockoff version

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/21/word-ending-saturday-here-all-times-world-supposed-end-and-didnt/689011001/ Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Strike out the ones that have passed -and failed-. 195.235.239.101 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That might get a bit annoying to read. Some sort of separator would be good though. —Kazitor, ^pending 09:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

A 'You are here/the present' statement in a distinctive colour (and which will sit around 2019-2025 unless someone finds some new predictions). Anna Livia (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

They will all fail, won't they? Or if one succeeds, I doubt anybody will say "aha! RationalWiki was wrong!" A better idea might be to have subsections in the 21st Century section for "failed" and "pending" predictions. Totnes^Bicycle 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Another suggestion

End of the world bingo:

• Asteroids/Nibiru/Planet X/astronomically invisible star orbiting the sun
• Computer related (including grey goo, and Y2000/Y2038 problem)
• Assorted radiation-related topics
• Reversing the (magnetic) polarity (inside or outside a police phone box)
• 'An excess of predictions of the end of the world' (whether or not involving lampreys)

Any more? (And how many points for each?) Anna Livia (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism.

This page seems to have become a favorite target for vandals. Is there a reason why, or is it merely a trend? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Another prediction

From 'a sufficiently unreliable source' [7]. Anna Livia (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

December 2019 the end of the world according to this book from 2013 https://www.amazon.com/End-Times-2019-Calendar-Countdown/dp/1935487922 ^{— Unsigned, by: 79.176.223.22 / talk}

∞th century

'I assume this end-of-the-world-scenario will not cause the Universes (yes, Universes( to be everlastingly empty, but will end the Universes, so can we change the specific part of the the section ?’--62.242.41.180 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

Is this list 'a bonfire of the apocalypses'? Anna Livia (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

More possibilities

Trump gets his wall started off, and 'five days after Brexit finally occurs.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fictional End of the World?

Could we add stuff from fiction, like the great journey from Halo?Tanker One (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, this list is for doomsday "prophecies" made by people in the real world. The point is to compile all the failed/probably going to fail "predictions" in one place in order to illustrate the absurdity of it all. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We have a few jokingly fictional ones already in the list, but those tend to have articles anyway. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

2031 entry is incorrect

2031:World's end by way of irreversible climate change if there is insufficient mitigation, according to a United Nations report by climate scientists

This is not at all what they said. They said that we have until 2050 to reduce emissions to zero for the easiest way to stay within 1.5°C. That includes reducing by 45% by 2030. But if we don't achieve that we then have to ramp down rapidly to zero emissions by 2045. If we don't do that and overshoot we then need carbon capture and storage using existing technology of burning biofuels and capturing the emissions of power stations.

See my

What The IPCC Scientists Really Said - NOT 'All Going To Die' - Key Points, Press Conference And Some Highlights From The Report - which has the actual video of the press conference itself plus interviews with the individual co-chairs all from their YouTube channel - which is material that as far as I know none of the mainstream journalists shared. It was very upbeat and positive and this idea that they said we have 12 years to save teh planet from total destruction or devastation is a paraody of what they said.

But if we go over to 2 C we lose most of the corals but it is not an uninhabitable Earth or collapse of civilization. We are already on track to 3 C and that is not either especially as we have lots of slack to up our pledges (and already many are).

The report includes it's own example of a worst case scenario, box 8 of chapter 3

“Scenario 3 [one possible storyline among worst-case scenarios]:Mitigation: uncoordinated action, major actions late in the 21st century, 3°C of warming in 2100

I discuss this here

The IPCC’s own worst case climate change example - a 3°C rise by 2100

Robertinventor (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly an exaggeration of the climate report, but people (e.g. AOC) have said it means the world will end in/by 2031, and so it absolutely deserves a place here. --Annanoon (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the "according to climate scientists" that I think is misleading. It should be "According to some journalists and politicians who misunderstood the science in a United Nations report by climate scientists" Robertinventor (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

"2039: End of life, the universe and everything. Also known as the Ascension."

That one don't have a citation. That's from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?--ANewUser (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried and failed to find a citation, but a long time since I read any Adams; does anyone know better? --Annanoon (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know of anything, doesn't ring any bells. I think it is just a joke entry by someone that made up the idea of a date in the Hitch Hiker's Guide at least it doesn't cite anything. And the HitchHiker's guide doesn't talk about "the Ascension" either AFAIK. Robertinventor (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Just checked, bought the kindle book and there is no occurrence of "2039" or "Ascension" in it. Robertinventor (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we just remove this entry? It's a joke entry. We are not supposed to cover fictional ends of the world here, and if it was in HitchHiker's guide it would be fictional but it doesn't seem to be even by Douglas Adams but just invented by an editor of this page without a source. At least nobody has turned up a source yet. I help people who are scared of things like this and I am contacted from time to time by people who find this joke entry scary and I don't see what the point in it is. Or if it is here for a reason it needs to be explained to the reader. Robertinventor (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Clogged with fluff

Some sections, particularly from 2019, have been annotated with every single event in some person's interpretation of the Book of Revelation (e.g. there's at least 10 entries from https://www.revelation2012.ch/). If someone prophecies a series of events that together form a narrative of the end of the world, don't put every event as a separate entry, or the page will become insanely long. Instead, pick a single date: either the end of the world or something that's equally visible and obvious (rapture or final apocalyptic battle or resurrection of all the dead). You can mention later dates/narrative in the first entry, but keep it brief. Also, every entry should say who made the prediction, otherwise it's just a list of "2020 World ends" "2021 World ends". I will try and prune this, but wanted to give warning. --Annanoon (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, what the fuck does this mean:

2019 (February 3rd): His 7 billion populated people's ideas, theories, memories, plans & imaginations are gone at all, causing the sequel movies have been released. No one will notice because the link was never found at all or everyone be noticed.

--Annanoon (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted some fluff but still no idea about the above quote. --Annanoon (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The real end of the world

Five minutes after you die. Anna Livia (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Where should

'Closing time at The World's End' pubs be included? Anna Livia (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Clarification

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

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? Leucippus^Talk 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’. Leucippus^Talk 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

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

A lot of hot air

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)

The sky is falling

This appeared in my usual source of weird non-science/nonsense. Anna Livia (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And now this. (I am just reporting the suggestions - I treat them with the relevant amount of 'RW-worthy exotic versions of salt.') Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The end of civilisation (as we know it)

A prediction here.

Possibly there could be a subsection 'List of predictions of the end of civilisation (as we know it)' (possibly including reference to Brexit).

The time to actually start worrying is when there are no 'live' predictions (rather than those predicted a while ago, quote mining Nostradamus and similar). Anna Livia (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

Coming across this - should there a subsection here/a separate page of 'List of predictions of The End of Civilisation as We Know It'? White replacement theory would be an entry. Anna Livia (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Spud (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Watching this guy move the end of the world date forward every month is amusing

but I'm going to stop now. Starting to feel a bit quotidian. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Would Cao Cao 'I would rather destroy the world than have the world destroy me' fit here?

Looking for the quote came across this. Anna Livia (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(Should have been posted here. Anna Livia (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC))