Ask A Genius 1234: When is the end of our worlds?
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We began collaborating 14% into the 21st century. Now, we are 25% into it. If you start counting the 21st century from the year 2000—which is slightly inaccurate but often done—we have completed 25 years. That means we are one-quarter of the way through the 21st century. Purists might argue that we are only 24% done, but regardless, we are well into what many consider a “science fiction” century.
Rick Rosner: The 20th century was a time that gave rise to science fiction, and much of that fiction was set in the 21st century. If you are old enough to remember the 20th century, much of what is happening now feels somewhat “science fiction-y,” although in a disappointingly dystopian way.
I was recently reflecting on the concept of the end of the world. AI seems to be heralding the end of the world as we know it, prompting the question: has the world ended before, and if so, when? One could argue that every major extinction event in Earth’s evolutionary history marked the end of the world, with the most notable being the meteorite impact on the Yucatan Peninsula, which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals. Is that a fair characterization?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Rosner: The challenge in calling that the end of the world lies in the fact that no sentient beings at the time had a conception of “the world” as humans do today. Sure, there might be fanciful speculation about a lost dinosaur civilization, but that is clearly unfounded. Perhaps birds and pterodactyls, as precursors to modern birds and remnants of the dinosaur lineage, had some instinctive awareness of their surroundings. However, no animal at the time possessed a conscious, conceptual understanding of the world that could be obliterated.
For such an understanding, we had to wait for humans—the conceivers and record-keepers of history. One might argue that the fall of the Roman Empire represented the end of the world. But does it hold up as a convincing case? Could the end of the Roman Empire, or any empire for that matter, be considered the end of the world?
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
Jacobsen: It was, perhaps, the end of a world—an era or an arena of human existence. Typically, when large civilizations collapse—whether Roman, Mongolian, Spanish, or British—they bring about significant societal changes within a century of their decline. However, none of these events qualifies as the literal end of the world. These collapses were often accompanied by renewals. They represented transitions rather than outright terminations.
Some might also argue that the decline of religion and the rise of science marked the end of a worldview. However, I find that argument unconvincing.
Rosner: Nothing in the past seems to compare with what could be the displacement of humans brought about by AI. While humans will likely remain essential to civilization, we may no longer be the apex thinkers. To me, that signals the end of the world as we have known it.
Jacobsen: We may, however, continue to be the apex feelers for some time.
Rosner: Another potential candidate for the end of the world could be the world of horses, whose role in transportation was replaced by automobiles and other vehicles powered by engines.
Jacobsen: Yet again, this was not the end of the world; it was merely the end of a world.
Rosner: So, can we consider the next hundred years under AI as the end of the world for humans? Perhaps not entirely, as we are likely to continue existing in vast numbers. However, the nature of our existence and our role in civilization may undergo a transformation so profound that it feels like the end of one world and the beginning of another. Though our population—the unaugmented human population—will eventually decline.
Jacobsen: A lot of the metrics you’re using are external. The collapse of a civilization or a specific orientation could be seen as one type of “end of the world.” Another way to consider it is by looking at our internal worlds: how we perceive and think about the world. Something truly transformative would be the deep integration of various technologies into our cognition—whether to augment it, replace it, or repair dysfunctional thought processes. For instance, consider a cure for schizophrenia or something akin to the Parkinson’s pacemaker, which helps individuals function where they want to function. These are not enhancements but repairs. If we include internal worlds in the discussion, it strengthens the argument that this could indeed be the end of the world as we know it.
Rosner: Humans have, of course, been conscious for as long as humans have existed, but we have lacked a deep understanding of what consciousness truly is. Lately, however, we’ve developed both an intuitive and technical grasp of consciousness that surpasses anything we’ve had before. Yet, even as we make these advances, the consciousness we understand is poised to be supplanted or expanded by a vast “jungle” of alternative ways to be conscious.
For centuries, humans have lived in a world where we saw ourselves as uniquely capable of magical thought—a little lower than the angels. But that era is coming to an end. What lies ahead is this “jungle” of new possibilities. The blissful ignorance we’ve lived in—a perception built on fragile foundations—is soon to disappear.
Jacobsen: What are you arguing?
Rosner: What am I arguing? I’m arguing whether this qualifies as an apocalypse—a definitive end of the world. Think of a nuclear apocalypse, like in the game Fallout or its TV adaptation. In those cases, the end of civilization as we know it can be argued as the end of the world. It’s a strong argument, no matter what causes it. Whether it’s the kind of cheap TV or movie apocalypse where The Last of Us depicts a brain-infecting fungus wiping out 99-point-something percent of humanity, or Stephen King’s The Stand, where a virus does the same—any scenario where 99-point-something percent of humans are wiped out constitutes the end of the world. Even if the story takes place after the apocalypse, the world as it was is over.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
And what is coming may not wipe out—even indirectly—1% of humanity, but I believe it comes closer to qualifying as the end of the world than anything else in human history. I guess we’re on to that.
Jacobsen: The fact that we’re redefining what it means to be human, both in terms of the external landscape and our internal worlds, represents a process of eliminating humanity—not necessarily in a negative or constructive way, but certainly in a transformative one.
I like the term “unicity”—a wholly unified system. Tugging at any part of the system, like the Fates pulling threads, alters the dynamics of everything. Even now, with smartphones, we’re already significantly altering our internal worlds. Similarly, we’ll soon be doing this more directly, bypassing the indirect interaction of light and sound waves through our senses and instead engaging directly with our cognition.
Rosner: There’s a 60-year-old science fiction novel, Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke, where an alien civilization that seeded Earth determines that humans have reached a sufficient level of development to move into their next evolutionary phase. A new generation emerges, poised to explore the stars in a vastly transformed state. I can’t recall whether regular human life on Earth disappears entirely, but this concept of a “phase change” aligns with what you’re describing.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 