These days, it’s easy to give in to hopelessness. Whether you’re thinking about the climate crisis, the threat of an AI apocalypse, war, or political turmoil, the challenges facing humanity can seem overwhelming. It certainly feels unprecedented, and much of it may be. But the sense of impending doom is nothing new. What we’ve learned from the past is that doomerism can lead to paralysis. If everyone freezes, nothing changes—but if we want any chance of reducing some of these threats, we need to act.
In 1947, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created a famous magazine cover featuring a “Doomsday Clock.” The hands move closer to midnight whenever events push humanity closer to catastrophe, and they move back when we make the world a little safer. The original setting was seven minutes to midnight; now the hands are just 85 seconds away.
The Doomsday Clock was a particularly memorable form of crisis communication. The idea was to wake people from their daily routines and help them realize the serious risks we face. It belongs to a long tradition of debate about how to inform, warn, and inspire the public to take action.
On one end of the spectrum are the doomers. These are often activists and whistleblowers who feel genuine dread about imminent disaster and want to inspire the same alarm in others. Recently, former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon made headlines by arguing that frontier AI models pose an existential risk to humanity.
On the other end are critics who tend to dismiss these calls as either overblown or self-serving. They argue that exaggerated claims either cause needless panic or distract from more important issues.
I find myself in a third camp: people who have sincere concerns about the problems facing humanity but worry that feelings of dread will paralyze people. Inaction is a reasonable response if you’re led to believe we’re past the point of no return, or that the problem is so immense that anything you do won’t make a difference.
The problem with doomerism isn’t necessarily that the risks are exaggerated, but that it can create a self-fulfilling prophecy—by fostering helplessness rather than motivating people.
Experts on persuasion have known about this aspect of human psychology for many years. When people hear messages designed to appeal to their fears, they can be moved to take action. But this tends to work only as a one-off, and only when the messages convey a sense of efficacy—a belief that it’s still possible to make a difference. By contrast, if people are flooded with scary and overwhelming stories about climate or AI, they tune out. Like the boy who cried wolf, those delivering these messages can quickly find themselves ignored.
A big problem for us now is that the modern information ecosystem tends to reinforce negativity. For decades, a core principle in the news business has been “if it bleeds, it leads.” This came from journalists’ understanding that humans are drawn to bad news. This principle now dominates what you see online.
My colleagues and I looked at traffic to news stories on Upworthy.com. This was a website that became famous for A/B testing headlines to see which one drove clicks, then using the most popular one. We analyzed 22,743 of these mini-experiments and found that each additional negative word in a headline increased clicks by 2.3%. Psychologists call this the negativity bias: bad is more attention-grabbing than good.
So how does consuming these stories affect our behavior? We tested the impact of negative messaging around climate in a massive study with 59,440 participants in 63 countries. We had climate experts create 11 different messages to determine exactly which ones changed beliefs and mobilized people to take real action.Discover your favorite authors through our expert reviews, interviews, and news stories. Literary delights delivered straight to you. Enter your email. Sign up. After newsletter promotion.
“If we want to motivate people in the face of dire threats, we must give them a reason to hope.”
The messages included emphasizing scientific consensus (for example, noting that “99% of expert climate scientists” agree on the facts), social norms (stating that most people in each nation were concerned), consequences for one’s region (emphasizing the increased frequency and severity of wildfires and floods), or the effects of climate change on future generations (asking participants to imagine writing a letter about their actions on the climate crisis that would be read by people decades from now).
We also included a passage full of doom and gloom that told participants: “If your anxiety about climate change is dominated by fears of starving polar bears, glaciers melting and sea levels rising, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a young adult today. And yet the swelling seas – and the cities they will drown – have so dominated the picture of climate change/global warming that they have blinded us to other threats, many much closer at hand and much more catastrophic …”
This terrifying passage proved the most effective at getting people to share it on the internet or social media. But like other fear appeals, it failed to inspire real action: it was the single worst message for getting people to make the time and effort to mitigate climate effects – by planting trees, for example. It also failed to increase belief in the climate emergency or support for climate policies.
This absolutely doesn’t mean we should avoid sharing the facts about the climate crisis. The message that emphasized the overwhelming scientific consensus noted that the “Earth is warming and climate change is happening” due to human activity. It was more effective than negativity on every outcome we measured, except for sharing on the internet. It conveyed the facts in a sober manner, with the backing of 99% of climate scientists.
What this shows is that, instead of making people feel inept and miserable, we need to take the exact opposite approach. Scientific consensus isn’t the only powerfully motivating message. My PhD student Danielle Goldwert has found that telling people about the potential emotional benefits of climate action – such as increased hope and connection – makes them significantly more likely to take action, whether through political participation, advocacy, donating money to climate causes, or changing their lifestyle.
If we want to motivate people in the face of dire threats, we must give them a reason to hope. Without that, we are destined to doomscroll while the world burns. Jay Van Bavel is a professor of psychology and neural science at New York University.
Further reading:
Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie (Vintage, £18.99)
Hope in the Dark by Rebecca Solnit (Canongate, £10.99)
The Future We Choose by Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac (Vintage, £12.99)
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs The Problem With Telling People the World Is Ending
1 What does telling people the world is ending mean here
It means warning people that a catastropheclimate collapse AI takeover societal breakdownis imminent or already unstoppable
2 Why is that a problem Its true isnt it
The facts may be serious but doomstyle messaging often backfires It can cause paralysis denial and distrust instead of action
3 What is doom fatigue
Its the exhaustion people feel after constant crisis warnings When everything is framed as the end people tune out
4 Does fear ever motivate people
A little fear can spark action but too much shuts people down Fear works best in small doses paired with clear steps people can take
5 Whats the difference between a warning and doommongering
A warning says This is serious and heres what we can do Doommongering says Its over so why bother
6 What happens psychologically when people believe its too late
They disengage Psychologists call it learned helplessnessif nothing you do matters you stop trying
7 Isnt it dishonest to soften the message
No Accuracy includes solutions Leaving out what can still be done is as misleading as leaving out the risk
8 What is doomscrolling and how does it relate
Its compulsively consuming bad news It feeds anxiety and hopelessness while giving a false sense of being informed
9 Can apocalyptic language actually increase risk
Yes It can trigger fatalism panic or backlashand backlash can discredit the very warnings people need to hear
10 Who is most vulnerable to doom messaging
Young people especially Research links heavy climatedoom exposure to distress and reduced motivation in teens and young adults
11 Whats a better way to communicate a serious threat
Be honest about the risk show that action matters and give concrete steps Things are bad and heres what helps beats were doomed
12 What is hope in this contextisnt it naive
Not naive hopepractical hope Its grounded in evidence that efforts reduce harm even if they cant
