A scientist has dismissed a 66-year-old prediction that the world would end on Friday, November 13, 2026, after explaining why the population growth figures behind the forecast are no longer accurate.
The prediction, published in 1960 in Science, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, warned that humanity would eventually face an overcrowded world in which the population would grow beyond sustainable limits.
However, Professor Alan MacEachern, a history professor at Western University, has reassured the public that the forecast does not mean the world is facing an imminent catastrophe.
Titled ‘Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026’, the 1960 article was written by Heinz von Foerster, an Austrian-American professor and cybernetics expert, alongside two of his students, Patricia M. Mora and Lawrence W. Amiot.
The researchers based their prediction on population growth trends over the preceding 2,000 years, arguing that the human population would eventually ‘approach infinity’ and effectively destroy itself.
In their study, the authors warned: “Our great–great–grandchildren will not starve. They will be squeezed to death.’’
Despite its extraordinary conclusion, the research attracted considerable attention and was frequently referenced in academic textbooks covering genetics, ecology and demography.
However, MacEachern explained that the prediction failed to account for subsequent changes in global population growth, particularly the significant decline in birth rates.
According to him, the figures used in the 1960 study no longer reflect current demographic realities, making its November 13 deadline an unreliable forecast.
‘’Only around 1993 did that accuracy begin to falter and the global population began falling behind the forecasts,’’ Professor MacEachern explained.
‘’Today, the global birth rate is slightly less than half the 1960 rate.’’
The historian also drew attention to an unusual detail about the study’s lead author, von Foerster, who had previously worked as a stage magician.
MacEachern suggested that the scientist’s background may have influenced the way he presented the research, using an attention-grabbing conclusion to communicate a serious scientific argument.
‘’Borrowing the classic language of stagecraft, an effective illusion relies on three parts: the setup, the extraordinary turn and the final reveal that returns the situation to normal,’’ Professor MacEachern explained.
‘’Von Foerster and his co–authors’ article gained attention because it was an ordinary scientific article wrapped in an extraordinary title and conclusion.
‘’It retained significance because it was firmly grounded in research and argument. ‘To draw the world’s attention to a serious matter by way of absurdity — that’s a good trick.’’
With November 13 approaching, MacEachern maintained that there was no reason to expect the prediction to materialise, adding that the study remained an important example of how scientific research can use unconventional presentation to attract public attention.
He said: ’’We will all wake up on 13 November to an ordinary day.
‘’Nonetheless, this article remains exemplary, for blending rigorous science with the art of stagecraft to staggering effect.’’
Meanwhile, Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, believes the 1960 prediction offers an important lesson about how scientists communicate warnings about potential global catastrophes.
Although he expects November 13, 2026, to pass without incident, Woolhouse argued that scientists should examine the history of failed predictions before making claims about future threats.
Writing in a separate article for The Conversation, he said: ‘’The latest doomsday will pass uneventfully, but there’s always another waiting round the corner – it’s a recurring theme of human history,’’ he explained in an article for The Conversation.
’’Scientists may have taken the mantle from prophets and mystics, but are they really any better? ’The “scientific” predictions of population growth of the 1960s and 70s proved no more reliable than the doom-mongering of Nostradamus.
‘’There are too many parallels between that episode and today’s predictions for any complacency.
‘’Many of today’s scientists are genuinely and deeply worried about global threats (my own top concern is another pandemic).
’’There is a wealth of scientific evidence and opinion underpinning those fears. Even so, it would be irresponsible to ignore the lessons of recent history and risk making the same mistakes again.
’’Friday, November 13 2026, is an opportunity for scientists to reflect that, when it comes to prediction, a little humility goes a long way.
‘’Anyone who interrogates predictions of catastrophe is doing due diligence, and good scientists should welcome it.”
- Daily Mail