Heinz von Foerster wrote in 1960 that unchecked population growth could produce catastrophic limits and named Nov. 13, 2026 as a likely date under his extrapolation. He proposed a "peoplo‑stat" and measures such as heavy taxes on large families to control growth. Critics say simple exponential extrapolations ignore demographic transitions and biological and social constraints. Separately, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds to midnight at the start of 2025, citing nuclear risk, climate change, AI and disinformation.
Did a 1960 Physicist Predict Doomsday on Nov. 13, 2026? What von Foerster Said — and What the Doomsday Clock Signals
Late physicist Heinz von Foerster predicted back in 1960 that the world would end in 2026. At the start of 2025, the "Doomsday Clock" moved another second towards "midnight," which would mean the destruction of humanity.
Some readers may remember end‑of‑world talk tied to 2012. Another, older prediction has resurfaced: in 1960 physicist Heinz von Foerster published a short note in Science that, when revisited by Time Magazine, led to renewed attention because he identified a specific date in the 2020s as a likely tipping point.
Von Foerster — who died in 2002 — calculated that, under the assumptions of accelerating population growth, an effective singularity could occur and he named Friday, Nov. 13, 2026 as the “most likely” date for that scenario. As quoted in the Time report, he warned:
"Our great‑great‑grandchildren will not starve. They will be squeezed to death."
What Von Foerster Actually Argued
Von Foerster’s brief 1960 note used mathematical extrapolation of human population growth trends then observed. He warned that if growth continued to accelerate unchecked, even technological advances in food production could fail to keep pace with the rising demand. He suggested a population‑control mechanism he called a "peoplo‑stat" to hold numbers at a chosen level and even mentioned policy tools — such as heavy taxation on families with more than two children — as comparatively painless means to slow growth at that time.
Criticism And Context
Many scientists and commentators have long been skeptical of von Foerster’s forecast. Common critiques include:
- Exponential growth trends are rarely sustained indefinitely; demographic transitions, economic shifts and policy changes typically slow growth.
- Biological limits such as human gestation and social factors complicate simple mathematical extrapolations.
- Technological, medical and social developments since 1960 have changed fertility and mortality patterns in ways not captured by a short note of extrapolated data.
In short, von Foerster’s note is historically interesting and provocative, but most demographers do not regard a single extrapolated date as a reliable forecast of global collapse.
Why The Doomsday Clock Is Being Mentioned
Separately, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists updates its symbolic Doomsday Clock to reflect threats to civilization. At the start of 2025 the clock was reported at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest setting since the clock’s inception in 1947. The Bulletin says it now factors in not only nuclear risk but also climate change, artificial intelligence and mis‑/disinformation.
Dan Holz, chair of the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board, told reporters that even a one‑second move is significant: given developments over the prior year, the experts had not seen sufficient progress on key threats and, in some areas, conditions worsened.
Takeaway
Von Foerster’s 1960 doomsday date is an intriguing historical footnote and an example of how simple extrapolations can capture public imagination. However, mainstream experts treat such precise forecasts with skepticism because demographic dynamics and technological change are complex. The Doomsday Clock’s recent setting is a separate, expert‑driven signal meant to motivate policy action on multiple global risks rather than to confirm any single prophetic date.
Reporting for the underlying pieces included contributions from Time Magazine, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and USA Today. This article adapts those sources while clarifying context and criticism of the 1960 prediction.
