What was the 1960 doomsday prediction?

The 1960 doomsday prediction was a mathematical model suggesting that humanity's population would reach a critical point on 13 November 2026, leading to a theoretical population-growth singularity.

Why did the 1960 doomsday prediction not come true?

The prediction did not come true because it was based on assumptions of continuous accelerating population growth, which did not account for demographic shifts and changes in fertility patterns that slowed population increases.

How does the 2026 prediction compare with the 2012 Maya calendar scare?

The 2026 prediction was based on a mathematical model of population growth, while the 2012 scare was a modern interpretation of the Maya calendar's end of a cycle, not an ancient prediction of catastrophe.

Should Friday the 13th in 2026 cause concern?

No, the date's coincidence with Friday the 13th is superstitious and has no scientific basis for concern regarding population growth or global catastrophe.

End of the World Today? Friday the 13th's 1960 Doomsday Prediction Compared With 2012

One predicted a population crisis through mathematics; the other was blamed on an ancient calendar's final cycle

End of the World 13 November 2026 — A population-growth model published in 1960 projected an unprecedented rise in humanity's numbers over the decades that followed Johannes Plenio/Pexels

A scientific doomsday prediction has landed on Friday the 13th, reviving questions about whether 13 November 2026 could mark the end of the world. Unlike the 2012 Maya calendar scare, the 2026 date came from a mathematical population-growth model.

A 1960 paper in Science, titled 'Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026', argued that humanity's population was accelerating towards mathematical infinity. Its authors were Heinz von Foerster, Patricia M. Mora and Lawrence W. Amiot. The date was von Foerster's birthday.

What the 1960 Doomsday Prediction Claimed

The researchers modelled historical population estimates, fertility rates and death rates. They believed communication and cooperation could support growth beyond conventional exponential rates and help humanity manage its consequences.

Their calculations suggested a hyperbolic curve, with population doubling or tripling ever faster. The model projected more than 25 billion people by 2020, against the United Nations' estimate of about 8.2 billion in 2024, illustrating its divergence from reality. The model assumed accelerating growth would continue, but it could not anticipate demographic shifts that changed fertility patterns and slowed population increases across different parts of the world.

The paper warned that future generations would not starve but be 'squeezed to death'. It described a theoretical population-growth singularity, not the physical destruction of Earth.

Historian Alan MacEachern explained in an article republished by ScienceDaily on 16 October that the model appeared convincing for decades, before population figures fell behind its forecasts around 1993.

Why the Prediction Did Not Come True

ABC News reported on 13 November that global population growth peaked at about 2.3 per cent in 1963. The global birth rate is now less than half its 1960 level.

Economist Javier Birchenall told ABC that the researchers were not necessarily predicting a literal doomsday; the projection was a provocative warning about exceptional growth, not a literal prophecy. The figures made sense until around the 1980s, he said, before growth slowed below the formula's projections. Demographer Peter McDonald said fertility was difficult to predict more than about 10 years ahead.

How the 2026 Prediction Compares With 2012

The 2012 theory centred on 21 December, when the Maya Long Count calendar completed its 13-baktun cycle. The cycle covered about 5,125 years, beginning on 11 August 3114 BC. History said doomsayers linked the date to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, giant tidal waves and a supposed Planet X collision.

But the calendar marked the end of a cycle, not the world. The Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian says surviving Maya inscriptions do not show that the date predicted catastrophe. A new cycle began on 22 December. Maya time was cyclical, so time continued rather than civilisation ending. That calendar transition was not a prediction of catastrophe.

The key difference is that 2026 was a dated mathematical projection based on population statistics, while the 2012 apocalypse was a modern interpretation of a calendar transition, not a prediction established by the ancient Maya.

Should Friday the 13th Cause Concern?

The coincidence adds a superstitious layer: the paper named Friday, 13 November 2026, and that date has arrived. But the weekday has no scientific connection to population growth, and neither the 1960 study nor the Maya calendar establishes that catastrophe is due.

The 1960 model's assumptions had already diverged from real population trends. Its date was a mathematical projection, not evidence the world would end today.