The **Doomsday argument** (**DA**) is a probabilistic argument that claims to predict the number of future members of the human species given only an estimate of the total number of humans born so far. Simply put, it says that supposing the humans alive today are in a random place in the whole human history timeline, chances are we are about halfway through it.

It was first proposed in an explicit way by the astrophysicist Brandon Carter in 1983, from which it is sometimes called the **Carter catastrophe**; the argument was subsequently championed by the philosopher John A. Leslie and has since been independently discovered by J. Richard Gott and Holger Bech Nielsen. Similar principles of eschatology were proposed earlier by Heinz von Foerster, among others.

Denoting by *N* the total number of humans who were ever or will ever be born, the Copernican principle suggests that humans are equally likely (along with the other *N* − 1 humans) to find themselves at any position *n*, so humans assume that our fractional position *f* = *n*/*N* is uniformly distributed on the interval prior to learning our absolute position.

*f* is uniformly distributed on (0, 1] even after learning of the absolute position *n*. That is, for example, there is 95% chance that *f* is in the interval (0.05, 1], that is *f* > 0.05. In other words we could assume that we could be 95% certain that we would be within the last 95% of all the humans ever to be born. If we know our absolute position *n*, this implies an upper bound for *N* obtained by rearranging *n*/*N* > 0.05 to give *N* < 20*n*.

If Leslie's Figure is used, then 60 billion humans have been born so far, therefore it can be estimated that there is a 95% chance that the total number of humans *N* will be less than 20 × 60 billion = 1.2 trillion. Assuming that the world population stabilizes at 10 billion and a life expectancy of 80 years, it can be estimated that the remaining 1,140 billion humans will be born in 9,120 years. Depending on the projection of world population in the forthcoming centuries, estimates may vary, but the main point of the argument is that it is unlikely that more than 1.2 trillion humans will ever live. This problem is similar to the famous German tank problem.

Read more about Doomsday Argument: Variations, Reference Classes, Mathematics-free Explanation By Analogy

### Other articles related to "doomsday argument, doomsdays, argument":

**Doomsday Argument**Rebuttal

... Self-referencing

**doomsday argument**rebuttals attempt to refute the

**Doomsday argument**(that there is a credible link between the brevity of the human race's existence and its expected ...

**Doomsday Argument**- Mathematics-free Explanation By Analogy - The Doomsdays Argument As A Tricky Problem

... Sometimes, the

**Doomsdays**Argument is presented as a problem of probabilities involving the Bayes’ formula ...

**Doomsday Argument**Rebuttal - The Paradox - Paradoxical Conclusion

... If the

**Doomsday Argument**can apply to itself it can be simultaneously right (as a probabilistic

**argument**) and probably wrong (as a prediction) ... Therefore, Landsberg and Dewynne argue that it is more likely that the

**Doomsday argument**is wrong (even if its logic is correct) than that the human race will become extinct in 9,000 years (which the DA ... The interesting paradox is that the

**Doomsday argument**is probably wrong even assuming it to be completely right (in its 95% estimate) ...

### Famous quotes containing the words argument and/or doomsday:

“No one thinks anything silly is suitable when they are an adolescent. Such an enormous share of their own behavior is silly that they lose all proper perspective on silliness, like a baker who is nauseated by the sight of his own eclairs. This provides another good *argument* for the emerging theory that the best use of cryogenics is to freeze all human beings when they are between the ages of twelve and nineteen.”

—Anna Quindlen (20th century)

“Even an attorney of moderate talent can postpone *doomsday* year after year, for the system of appeals that pervades American jurisprudence amounts to a legalistic wheel of fortune, a game of chance, somewhat fixed in the favor of the criminal, that the participants play interminably.”

—Truman Capote (1924–1984)