1960 doomsday prediction of infinite population growth on Nov 13, 2026, and its failure

Consensus Summary

On November 13, 2026, the world did not end as predicted by a 1960 *Science* journal article titled *‘Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026’*. The paper, authored by Heinz von Foerster, Patricia M. Mora, and Lawrence W. Amiot, forecasted that human population growth would spiral toward infinity on that exact date, leading to catastrophic overcrowding. Both *7NEWS* and *ABC* confirm the prediction was based on a hyperbolic growth model using 2,000 years of population data, and it briefly held credibility until the 1990s, when global birth rates declined sharply. The authors’ math was initially praised for its rigor, though critics later dismissed it as absurd—partly because the doomsday date aligned with von Foerster’s birthday, a detail both outlets note.

The 1960 prediction emerged amid mid-20th-century fears of overpopulation, a concern rooted in Malthusian theory that exponential population growth would outstrip resources. Von Foerster and his colleagues argued humans were ‘exceptional’ due to their ability to collaborate, suggesting population density could accelerate rather than collapse. Their model projected ever-shrinking doubling times, culminating in an infinite population spike. *7NEWS* highlights how the article’s dramatic framing—combined with dense mathematical equations—garnered attention in *Time*, *The New York Times*, and even *Pogo* comics, while *ABC* emphasizes the study’s initial humor and the authors’ playful timing. Both agree the prediction’s influence waned as global birth rates halved since 1960, proving the model flawed.

Key figures in the debate include Heinz von Foerster, a cybernetics expert and former stage magician whose background *7NEWS* ties to the article’s ‘stagecraft’ presentation. *ABC* cites economist Javier Birchenall, who called the study ‘exceptional’ and published a follow-up in *Science* last month, and demographer Peter McDonald, who warned against treating population trends as universal laws. McDonald noted that even the post-war baby boom—unpredicted in 1960—shows how social forces disrupt long-term forecasts. Both outlets also reference the prediction’s real-world impact: it was cited in political debates, including a 1963 Canadian committee on pesticides and a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court abortion case, as *7NEWS* details.

While both articles agree on the core facts, they diverge in emphasis. *7NEWS* focuses on the prediction’s scientific reception, its citations in academic texts, and the authors’ defense of their math despite ridicule. *ABC*, however, leans into the study’s humorous intent and the shift from overpopulation fears to concerns about declining birth rates, quoting Elon Musk’s controversial remarks on Australia’s fertility rate. *7NEWS* also notes the prediction’s role in justifying policies like China’s One Child Policy, whereas *ABC* highlights modern pronatalist movements and resource extraction warnings from a 2024 UN report. The only direct contradiction lies in whether the 1960 article was purely serious or laced with irony—*7NEWS* treats it as a genuine (if flawed) scientific effort, while *ABC* explicitly calls it a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ commentary.

Today, the global population growth rate has stabilized, with the UN projecting a peak of over 10 billion in about 60 years before a slow decline. *ABC* underscores that while population growth is no longer accelerating, resource consumption is rising sharply, driven by wealthier nations. *7NEWS* concludes by noting that humanity avoided the ‘squeezed to death’ scenario, though it acknowledges lingering concerns like Microsoft’s 2026 outage as a modern ‘doomsday’ metaphor. Neither article predicts further developments, but both suggest the episode serves as a lesson in how science and media can amplify even absurd claims when wrapped in compelling narratives. The unresolved question remains whether future population models will fare any better in anticipating social change.