Apocalyptic thinking, once associated mainly with fringe voices, is edging into mainstream thought as people grapple with climate instability, geopolitical strain and the unsettling rise of artificial intelligence.
New research suggests that a sense of impending doom now colours the outlook of many who might once have dismissed such anxieties as the domain of eccentrics.
The study, in which more than 3,400 people were surveyed across the US and Canada, reveals a surprisingly common preoccupation with the end of the world.
In the US sample, nearly a third said they expect the world to end within their own lifetime.
Across both countries, people imagine the end in varied and sometimes contradictory ways: speculating about when it might arrive, what force or folly might bring it about, and whether it should be dreaded or welcomed.
The research team said these beliefs tended to be closely tied to how people interpret major global threats such as climate change, pandemics, nuclear conflict and emerging technologies.
“Belief in the end of the world is surprisingly common,” said lead author Dr Matthew Billet from the University of British Columbia.
"It’s significantly influencing how people interpret and respond to the most pressing threats facing humanity,” he added.
Dr Billet and his UBC colleagues developed a psychological measure of end-of-world beliefs, identifying five key “dimensions of the apocalypse” that matter for how people think and act. They are:
- Perceived closeness (how soon the end will arrive)
- Anthropogenic causality (whether humans will cause it)
- Theogenic causality (whether divine or supernatural forces will cause it)
- Personal control (how much influence one personally has over the outcome)
- Emotional valence (whether the end will ultimately be good or bad)
“Different narratives people believe about the end of the world can lead to very different responses to societal issues,” said Dr Billet.
“Someone who believes humans are causing the apocalypse through climate change will respond very differently to environmental policy than someone who believes the end times are controlled by divine prophecy.”
The research also highlighted considerable differences across various religious denominations.
“Everyone agrees on one thing: we humans play an important role in the fate of our species,” said Dr Billet.
“This was as true for the religious as it was for the non-religious. However, there were also differences between religious denominations that were quite stark. These differences point to how religion – and culture more broadly – can shape how we fundamentally view the world and our collective future.”
One of the study’s most striking insights lies in how these apocalyptic beliefs shape people’s willingness to act – or, in many cases, their curious refusal to do so.
Participants were asked to consider five categories of global existential risk identified by the World Economic Forum: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological.
Those convinced that humanity is hastening its own demise tended to see these dangers as more acute and were far more inclined to endorse sweeping, even drastic, measures to confront them.
Meanwhile, those who believed the end would be orchestrated by divine forces proved markedly less eager to support any preventative action, with human intervention effectively relegated to a futile gesture against a cosmic timetable already set in motion.
Dr Billet said the study comes at a pivotal moment, one in which global coordination is essential if societies are to manage the mounting existential risks our civilisation faces.
The different attitudes to the threats facing us “can create disagreements across cultural groups that make it difficult to coordinate responses to global risks, both within countries and between countries,” he said.
“Today, beliefs about [the end of the world] undermine efforts at mass vaccination against Covid-19. The dread of climate apocalypse undermines young people’s motivation to tackle climate change and to bring children into this world.”
But rather than dismissing apocalyptic thinking as irrational, Dr Billet argues that understanding these beliefs is essential for effective communication and policy-making in an increasingly divided society.
“Whether or not any particular apocalyptic narrative is accurate, they are still consequential for how populations confront concrete risks,” he said.
“If we want to build consensus around addressing climate change, AI safety or pandemic preparedness, we need to understand how different communities are interpreting these threats through their own cultural lenses. In a world facing genuine catastrophic risks, that understanding has never been more important.”
The research is published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Mum-of-three with MND hears her own voice again thanks to AI technology
UK data watchdog writes to Meta over ‘concerning’ smart glasses claims
Sea levels are already a foot higher than most scientists estimate, research reveals
Astronauts could soon be eating moon hummus, study suggests
Ecologists alarmed after invasive fire ants found in ancient Australian rainforest
