When questioned, Jesus of Nazareth had this to say on the subject of the end of the world: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32) We don’t seem to have improved on that forecast since and not all the research associates and interns toiling at Mead GHQ crunching all the computers that money can buy have been able to come up with anything more precise.
But whether or not we get the Big Bang or the Big Whimper, the new decade is going to be haunted by the specter of an approaching apocalypse; a lot of people will think the world is ending, or could end, and the mixture of hope, fear and apocalyptic energy unleashed by that perception will be affecting both national and international politics on an increasing scale as time goes by.

Some of this end-of-the-world feeling will be the good old fashioned religious kind, the type of movement that led the Millerites to expect the return of Jesus on a series of several dates ending with the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844. But one of the characteristics of our modern age is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist anymore to believe in the end of the world.
It doesn’t take a miracle anymore to bring the world to its end: a simple nuclear holocaust will do the trick. So would a “runaway greenhouse” effect if a positive feedback loop developed to drive global warming into an acceleration that ultimately made life as we know it impossible on earth. There are many more ‘secular apocalypse’ scenarios out there: runaway nanotechnology experiments could cover the world in ‘grey goo’; either accidentally or on purpose genetically modified ‘superbugs’ could be released into the environment, seeding with world with a new and unsurvivable plague. Hollywood stands ready to bring these and other fears to life on the big screen; more alarmingly, the accelerating progress of technologically driven change that we identified as the core trend driving human history this decade, inexorably brings with it new possibilities for human self-destruction on a world or at least a civilization-ending scale.
The same driving trend of accelerating change that makes new horror movie scenarios possible also makes them feel likely. People turn to apocalyptic scenarios when it feels as if history is coming off the rails — when new and inexplicable phenomena threaten the security and stability of old ideas, institutions, habits and beliefs. Before the modern era, natural and social catastrophes led to bouts of apocalyptic thinking. The Jewish social crisis of the first century, for example, inspired many of Jesus’ disciples and other Jews to expect the end of the world; the end of the old Jewish world did in fact come as the Romans leveled Jerusalem in 70 AD; in this and two subsequent Jewish revolts, hundreds of thousands were slaughtered or enslaved, and most of Palestine’s Jews were driven out into an exile of 2000 years. It was against the background of these events and the Roman persecutions of Christians that the early church produced the Book of Revelations, still the chief source book for apocalyptic imagery in the Christian world today.

Over the next 1600 years, barbarian invasions, plagues and variations in the climate led many to conclude at various times that the end of the world was at hand. When Rome fell to the Goths, when Islamic armies swept through Egypt, the Holy Land, Spain, Sicily and ultimately captured Constantinople and besieged Vienna, Christians leafed feverishly through the books of prophecy to find insights for their times. When the Black Death depopulated Europe, when the Reformation set Protestants and Catholics at each others throats and convulsed half a continent in ruinous and universal war, it seemed that only the vocabulary and the imagery of the apocalyptic books could adequately express the fear and the devastation. In the Islamic world, events like the devastating Mongol invasions similarly led many people to believe that God was preparing to wind up the scrolls and bring human history to an end.
The apocalypse scares of past centuries were very real in their day, but we are heading into something much bigger and more consuming. The technological explosion through which we are living makes the end of the world increasingly probable from an intellectual point of view (nuclear proliferation, for example, makes nuclear war more likely); the era of rapid and often destabilizing change creates an emotional climate that is conducive to end-of-the-world thinking. Thus the rapid cultural, economic and demographic changes that are transforming the Islamic Middle East helped nurture the apocalyptic terror cults which see all world history coming down to a religio-military confrontation between the threatened true believers and a hostile world of infidels and apostates. The genocidaires of Rwanda believed they were soldiers in a struggle for the survival of everything they cared about against a shadowy conspiracy of absolute evil. The rational basis for concern about catastrophes like nuclear war is increasing; at the same time many people experience the cultures and beliefs that give their lives meaning are rapidly being destroyed by the unrelenting assault of a hostile world.
The end of the world scenarios that will increasingly influence culture and politics in the next decade come in four types. Malthusian catastrophes envision the collapse of human civilization or the environment as the result of the pressure of human population and consumption on the planet. From climate change to resource wars and mass famines in the overpopulated future, Malthusian catastrophe scenarios take many forms; at times prominent scientists have endorsed them. Faustian technology scenarios involve the destruction of human civilization by the fruits of our heedless technological advance. Global destruction by nuclear weapons is the most prominent (and probable) Faustian scenario, but there are many others. Cultural catastrophes involve the destruction of everything that makes life meaningful and worth living by a souless and/or godless cosmopolitan culture. Both fascism and communism in the twentieth century were nurtured on fears that the cold world of industrialized mass production would crush ordinary people. In the twenty first century radical Islam is the most violent such ideology, but it is likely that others will rise. Finally, the old fashioned religious apocalypse is still with us, energized both by the development of ‘hot religion’ (see Trend # 6) and a global situation which is broadly supportive of apocalyptic ideas.
At the beginning of this series on the top trends of the new decade, I pointed to the acceleration of technological change as the master trend driving many of the events of our time. From Henry Adams onward, observers have visualized the rate of technological progress as an exponential curve; as the curve turns sharply upward the rate of change approaches infinity. I think that throughout the world many people share this sense that the rate of change is making its move — that rollercoaster of world history is heading up a precipitious slope. One way to define the apocalypse is to say it is an era of infinite change; the apocalyptic intuitions and fears of our times are not the product of superstition or ignorance; they are a response to what seems to be happening around us.

There is a distinct danger that self-reinforcing ‘apocalyptic cycles’ will develop and spread in the next decade. Christians, Jews and Muslims, for example, may come to believe that events in and around Jerusalem presage an apocalyptic culmination of world history: the appearance of the Messiah, the return of Christ, or for some Muslims, the final struggle with infidelity. Radical religious groups influenced by these scenarios and prophecies may well take actions to advance their preferred scenario: the destruction of Islamic religious shrines, for example, to prepare the way for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. (Religious enthusiasts are already at work preparing for the reconstruction and dedication of the Third Temple.) Such actions (even if they fail) would raise the level of tension around Jerusalem and make it more of a focus for apocalyptic hopes and fears; more people will be drawn to religious sects that focus on Jerusalem in the end times. This in turn will increase the likelihood of further turmoil in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, giving additional credibility to apocalyptic sects and drawing yet more people into their networks.
That is an apocalyptic cycle in which the perceived likelihood of an apocalyptic turn in world history causes people to behave in ways that make such a turn more likely still; this brings more people into the movement and so on. We are also likely to see more of the “Chicken Little” phenomenon as generalized fears about where humanity is headed cause otherwise sensible people to lose their perspective on potential threats. Briefly during the bird flu epidemic it was front page news in the United States when chickens got sick in Indonesia. Assessing threats accurately and coping with them rationally in a world of limited resources becomes more difficult at times like these. When people believe that the sky is preparing to fall, any little acorn can set off a panic.
Civil society roiled by Faustian, Malthusian, cultural and religious disaster scenarios; religious extremists in apocalyptically-motivated conflicts; Chicken Littles left and right screaming that the sky is falling every time a duck sneezes somewhere; policy makers trying to keep the global ship on a steady course in increasingly turbulent waters: that is not a particularly pleasant or reassuring picture, but this seems to be where the world will be heading in the 2010s.
Ironically, while technology and religion will often be seen as the cause of the world’s problems in the 2010s, they will both rank among humanity’s most valuable assets. By creating new economic resources and offering new tools to analyze and address unwanted byproducts of human technological development, the rapid increase in technology and computing power of the next decade may offer humanity its greatest hope for managing the consequences of our technological advance.

In any case, developing the institutions, the ideas and the policies that can cope with our accelerating rate of change and its effects on the human heart will be the principle task of those in the next decade who seek to keep the world as stable and peaceful as possible in this revolutionary age. By providing the intellectual and spiritual tools to help people organize and work through their fears, and by promoting and fostering the kind of religious faith that can give meaning to change and guide both individuals and groups to constructive and ethical behavior under difficult circumstances, religion similarly will play a critical role in the efforts to manage and reduce the danger that irrational behavior can trigger one or more of the apocalyptic scenarios over which we are likely to lose increasing amounts of sleep as time marches on.





Without discounting any of the possibilities you mention, my own preferred interpretation of what “the end of the world” means in Christian tradition is a little different. I think it refers to the end of “the world” as they knew it, which is to say, a world of political and economic oppression (“the whole world groans in agony and travail,” in the words of St. Paul. There was no free speech in the days of Rome, especially when it came to questioning the secular order of things, so everything had to be couched obliquely and ambiguously, in terms of “original sin,” “the world,”hope for “a new heaven and a new earth,”"the whore of Babylon,” etc.. Occasionally the language is more explicit, as when Paul says we are up against “powers and principalities,” but that is the exception rather than the rule.
Furthermore, we should note that in the West at least — which used to be called Christendom — that old world has already been overthrown and replaced by a new one in which ordinary people enjoy liberty, leisure and basic human rights to a degree unimaginable in any other civilization.
Does this mean, in the samzidat, underground language of Christianity, Christ has already returned? Maybe. The evidence is all around, only we are too blind to see it.
In any case, for my taste World Wars I and II plus the Holocaust were more than enough in the way of an Apocalypse. A terrible human price was paid to make the modern world. We should work together to save what we have.
That final sentence above should be appended to read, “We should work together to save what we have and extend its benefits to the rest of humanity.” Sorry for the omission.
Rather than capitalizing on doomsday theories, why not look more towards the opportunities to be had. Rather than working to save what we have, why not build upon what we have. There are ways to make the world a better place, and it will mean significant change (some not for the better), but we have to be willing to adapt as the world continues turning.
We are living in Historical times. Never in history have there been more signs than now, never in history have there been more Christians pursecuted than now. . .more in the 20th century than all other 19 combined. What this means is time is running out on the church. Those that know Jesus and what he did on the Cross are excited. At the same time, it is time to get God’s Army ready.
[...] http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/01/19/2010s-7-end-of-the-world/ [...]
Walter Mead appears to accept the possibility of some sort of apocalyptic ending, just not certainty about when. His tone throughout appears to accommodate the viewpoint of apocalyptic and in so doing he does little to alleviate fear of the future. He later affirms global nuclear destruction as the most probable scenario for an apocalyptic outcome. But all of the longest term trends of reality and life reveal the opposite probability to an apocalyptic outcome- things will only get better; much better.
And let me add that the long term trends of reality and life (where we have come from and what has actually happened so far- stubborn factual evidence) are our best predictors of the most probable future outcomes.
Note, for instance, climate. Over the long history of climate on earth CO2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm (2000 ppm plus as recently as during the Jurassic/Cretaceous Periods) and no runaway greenhouse effect occurred. In fact, higher levels of CO2 benefitted plant growth and life flourished, especially during much warmer periods than today (warm periods do not always coincide with higher atmospheric CO2 levels). In all the long history of endless climate change, and much more rapid and severe past climate changes, there was never any apocalyptic outcome for life.
Let me take issue with his most probable apocalyptic outcome: nuclear war. He says, “The technological explosion through which we are living makes the end of the world increasingly probable from an intellectual point of view (nuclear proliferation, for example, makes nuclear war more likely)…Global destruction by nuclear weapons is the most probable Faustian scenario…”.
While the use of nuclear weapons by rogue states or terrorist groups is still probable and horrific to envision, this will not result in “global destruction” or “the end of the world”. There is a powerful opposing trend to violence and it involves the emergence and maturing of human (humane) consciousness. The result has been a significant decrease in violence over human history, with war becoming an ever-lessening threat to life. Note for instance, Stephen Pinker’s research on this in The Better Angels Of Our Nature, or James Payne’s History of Force.
Luke Mitchell (A Run On Terror http://harpers.org/archive/2004/03/0079957d ) also noted that a nuclear attack on a US city by terrorists could kill up to 250,000 people and be a singular horror. But, he adds, the country would go on as it did after the influenza epidemic of 1918 (600,000 deaths) or during the AIDs epidemic (500,000 deaths and counting) or after 9/11. It would not be the end of the US, just as nuclear war would not be the end of life.
We don’t ever want to diminish the horror of the catastrophes throughout history that devastate millions of lives. But the trend of violence and war to lessen over time nonetheless continues. And remarkably so. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that there will be no global destruction or end of the world. Not even from nuclear war.
To understand the highest probabilities of where life is headed one needs to consider the three longest and most prominent trends of reality and life. I refer to the three great emergences of (1) material reality (the universe, its history and development), (2) the history and development of biological life, and (3) the history and progress of human civilization. All three have shown endless improvement, advance, development, or progress toward something better and more humane. Not even the worst natural catastrophes, accidents, setbacks, downturns, or intentional violence along the way have halted this endless trajectory of progress.
This toothless monster of apocalyptic has been a darkening curse on human consciousness for far too long. It absolutely distorts the true state of life and hinders human progress. The resulting alarmist hysteria and panic produced by apocalyptic mythology has far too much impact on public policy and thereby hinders human progress (note, for example, the GM foods ban, and general environmental obstructionism). Apocalyptic terrorizes public consciousness and hinders the human spirit from experiencing the liberation of an unlimited future.
I would challenge anyone to put up any clear evidence that the progress of the three basic trends of reality and life show any evidence of some apocalyptic outcome. The history of apocalyptic has been correctly summarized in the aphorism- “Apocalyptic has a 100% failure rate”.
The long term evidence points clearly in the opposite direction to apocalyptic outcomes.
Wendell Krossa