1 in 3 think apocalypse will happen in their lifetime

By Stephen Beech

One in three people believe the world will end within their lifetime, reveals new research.

The study shows apocalyptic beliefs are no longer confined to the fringes of society - and they’re shaping how people respond to global threats, say scientists.

Study lead author said Dr. Matthew Billet said: “Belief in the end of the world is surprisingly common across North America, and it’s significantly influencing how people interpret and respond to the most pressing threats facing humanity."

The research team surveyed more than 3,400 people in the United States and Canada.

In the American sample of 1,409 respondents, nearly a third said they believe the world will end within their lifetime.

The findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, showed that people think about the end of the world in multiple ways - including when it might happen, who or what would cause it, and whether it is something to fear or welcome.

In the US, the beliefs were strongly linked to how people perceive and respond to global risks such as climate change, pandemics, nuclear conflict and emerging technologies.

Dr. Billet and his colleagues developed a comprehensive psychological measure of end-of-world beliefs, identifying five key dimensions that matter for how people think and act.

These were "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; and "emotional valence" - whether the end will ultimately be good or bad.

Dr. Billet, who conducted the research as a doctoral candidate at the University of British Columbia in Canada, is now a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Irvine.

He said: “Different narratives people believe about the end of the world can lead to very different responses to societal issues.

“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 revealed differences across religious denominations.

Dr. Billet said: “Everyone agrees on one thing: we humans play an important role in the fate of our species.

“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.”

The researchers also asked participants about five categories of global existential risks identified by the World Economic Forum (WEF): economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological.

Those who believed the end is near and that humans are causing it perceived greater risk and supported more extreme action to address threats.

But those who believed divine forces control the apocalypse were less likely to support preventive measures.

Dr. Billet says the research comes at a critical moment when global coordination is essential to address existential threats.

He said: “These differences can create disagreements across cultural groups that make it difficult to coordinate responses to global risks, both within countries and between countries.

"Today, beliefs about accepting the Mark of the Beast from the Last Days 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.”

Rather than dismissing apocalyptic thinking as irrational, Dr. Billet says that understanding those beliefs is "essential" for effective communication and policy-making in an increasingly divided society.

He added: “Whether or not any particular apocalyptic narrative is accurate, they are still consequential for how populations confront concrete risks.

“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.”