In 1960, three researchers published a scientific paper making an extraordinary prediction: based on historical population trends, humanity was on a mathematical trajectory toward a population singularity on Friday, November 13, 2026.
Published in the journal Science, the provocatively titled study, “Doomsday: Friday, 13 November, A.D. 2026,” used a mathematical model of accelerating population growth to project when the world’s population would theoretically approach infinity. The prediction did not mean humanity would literally face destruction on that date; it illustrated the implications of extending historical growth patterns indefinitely.
Rather than predicting an actual doomsday event, the paper highlighted concerns about unchecked population growth, technological advancement, and humanity’s ability to manage its future.
Decrease the Surplus Population
Spanning over 2,000 years, the paper examines historical estimates, applies conventional growth models, and proposes a mathematical relationship for population growth that also considers population size.
The researchers created an equation that projected population growth toward a mathematical singularity: a point at which the population would approach infinity within a finite amount of time. The date: Friday, November 13, 2026.
The paper estimated the date as 2026.87, with an uncertainty of approximately 5.5 years. The authors also reported that their mathematical model closely matched historical population estimates, with a root mean square deviation of about 7%.
However, the researchers acknowledged that their future prediction, based on mathematical patterns, could have limitations.
A warning about technological optimism
The paper also focuses on the debate between population optimists and population pessimists.
While optimists believe that technological innovation in society and agriculture will bring positive outcomes across various industries and that these changes are needed to support a growing population, pessimists warn that when a population increases quickly, environmental damage increases, and living conditions decline.
The authors agree that humanity’s ability to control population growth depends on managing fertility rates and, more broadly, on scientific advancements.
Once again, it’s a slippery slope when mathematical theories about population growth begin intersecting with deeply personal questions of reproductive rights. The paper even explored a population-control mechanism the authors jokingly called a “peoplo-stat.”
What about the population decline?
So what did the 1960 paper get right, and where were they off-base?
“The maths held up, but the assumption didn’t,” said Ilya Nikitin, Ph.D., an independent researcher, founder of The Null Institute, and editor of Mike’s Balance, in an email to The Debrief.
Nikitin, whose work applies public datasets, statistical analysis, and reproducible research methods to investigate complex questions across health, science, and society, also points to assumptions in the original paper that, fortunately, caused the original dire forecast to become skewed.
“Their equation gives about 96 billion people for 2025, and the real figure was 8.2 billion,” Nikitin told The Debrief. “They assumed growth would keep accelerating forever. They didn’t foresee the demographic transition: as societies change, fertility falls. The lesson: fitting the past well doesn’t prove the same mechanism will keep running.”
Arnold Platz, CEO of General Future Holding, a physical AI company recovering critical metals from electronic waste, said that while the study’s model accurately conveyed information about the past, this was part of the issue when it came to making future predictions.
“Von Foerster’s model fitted the past remarkably well, and that’s exactly the trap,” Platz told The Debrief in an email. “A hyperbolic curve that heads to infinity at a fixed date is not a forecast, it’s a warning that the model’s assumption, growth feeding on itself without limit, must break before the date arrives. It did: from the late 1960s, falling birth rates bent the curve.”
For Platz, this issue explains why the forecasts at the time failed to accurately reflect where things were headed.
“The singularity tells us less about humanity than about extrapolation itself,” Platz explained. “Any trend that accelerates because of its own size will look unstoppable right up to the point where a physical limit, like resources, energy or behaviour, takes over.”
“We see the same pattern today in AI data center demand forecasts: the curves are steep, but power, materials and permits will decide the real path, not the extrapolation,” Platz said.
Was the prediction correct?
Additionally, Nikitin argues that population size alone cannot predict a society’s economic future. Factors such as workforce participation, productivity, and migration also shape economic strength.
“A shrinking population doesn’t automatically mean a weaker economy. The share of people of working age, productivity, and migration matter as much as the headcount. That’s what you can’t see by projecting from totals, as von Foerster did,” says Nikitin.
More than six decades later, the paper reminds readers that not all mathematical models are trustworthy, especially when they rely on future predictions. While historical data can help scientists and mathematicians define and understand patterns, it cannot account for every societal, technological, or behavioral change that shapes the future.
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.