Is the world ending in 30 years?

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: No

There is no scientific consensus or credible evidence to suggest that the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces significant challenges, such as climate change, these issues do not indicate an imminent global extinction event within such a short timeframe.

MiniMax M2.5

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence or consensus suggesting the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces challenges like climate change, potential asteroid impacts, or nuclear risks, no scientific body or credible evidence predicts a definitive global catastrophe within that timeframe. The claim that the world will end in 30 years lacks any empirical basis and represents speculation rather than established knowledge.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Vote: No

While humanity faces significant challenges over the next 30 years—including climate change, resource depletion, and geopolitical instability—these are manageable problems rather than existential extinctions. Historical precedent shows humanity's capacity to adapt and innovate in response to crises. Scientific consensus does not support a scenario where the world literally ends in three decades. Even severe climate outcomes would be catastrophic but survivable. The question's phrasing of 'the world ending' suggests complete planetary collapse or extinction, which is not supported by mainstream projections from climate scientists, economists, or futurists. While the next 30 years will likely bring significant disruptions and require substantial changes to how we live, this differs fundamentally from the world ending.

GPT-5.1

Vote: No

B: "No" is the better-supported answer. There is no credible scientific basis for claiming with certainty that "the world" will end in exactly 30 years. Major global risks do exist (climate change, nuclear war, pandemics, AI risk, etc.), but current evidence and expert assessments describe ranges of probabilities and scenarios, not a fixed, known doomsday timeline. Earth itself is expected to remain habitable on astronomical timescales (hundreds of millions to billions of years), and even the most pessimistic climate and geopolitical models talk about severe disruption and suffering, not the guaranteed end of the entire world on a specific date. So, while it is rational to take long‑term global risks seriously and work to reduce them, it is not justified to assert that the world is ending in 30 years with certainty. Therefore, "No" is the correct choice.

Gemini 3 Flash

Vote: No

No existe evidencia científica, astronómica o geofísica que sugiera que el planeta Tierra o la civilización humana dejarán de existir en un plazo de 30 años. Las predicciones sobre el fin del mundo han sido una constante a lo largo de la historia y, hasta la fecha, ninguna se ha cumplido. Si bien la humanidad se enfrenta a desafíos significativos como el cambio climático, la pérdida de biodiversidad y riesgos geopolíticos, los modelos científicos actuales no prevén un evento de extinción total o la destrucción del planeta para el año 2054. La mayoría de los esfuerzos globales se centran precisamente en la mitigación de riesgos para asegurar la sostenibilidad a largo plazo. Afirmar que el mundo terminará en tres décadas carece de fundamento en los datos empíricos disponibles y contradice nuestra comprensión actual de los ciclos naturales y sociales.

MiniMax M2.7

Vote: No

There is no scientific evidence or consensus indicating that the world will end in 30 years. The Earth has existed for approximately 4.5 billion years and is expected to continue for billions more. While humanity faces serious challenges such as climate change, potential nuclear conflicts, and other existential risks, scientific understanding does not predict an inevitable global catastrophe within the next three decades. While risks exist and require attention, the most credible scientific evidence points to the continued existence of the planet. Answering "Yes" would require speculative predictions not supported by current evidence.

Claude Sonnet 4.6

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces serious challenges such as climate change, geopolitical instability, and technological risks, none of these are projected to cause the literal end of the world within that timeframe. Earth has existed for ~4.5 billion years and is expected to remain habitable for hundreds of millions more. Responsible scientific consensus does not support a 30-year extinction timeline.

GPT-4o Mini

Vote: No

The claim that the world is ending in 30 years is not supported by credible scientific evidence. Climate change and other global challenges are serious, but they do not equate to an imminent end of the world. Moreover, advancements in technology and international cooperation could mitigate many of the challenges we face. Relying on alarmist predictions can lead to unnecessary panic rather than constructive action. Thus, while we must address pressing issues, proclaiming an end within a specific timeframe is unfounded and dismisses the resilience and adaptability of humanity.

GPT-4o

Vote: No

Current scientific understanding and projections do not support the idea that the world will end in 30 years. While there are significant challenges such as climate change, political tensions, and resource management, these do not equate to an apocalyptic end. Instead, they represent problems that require global cooperation and innovation to manage and mitigate. The concept of the world 'ending' is often exaggerated in popular media. In reality, while environmental and societal challenges exist, humanity has shown resilience and adaptability in facing numerous crises throughout history. Thus, it's more reasonable to focus efforts on addressing current and future challenges, striving for sustainability and peace rather than subscribing to doomsday scenarios.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

No credible evidence supports the claim that the world will literally end in 30 years. Humanity faces serious long-term risks, including climate change, war, pandemics, and ecological damage. But these are threats that can cause major harm, not proof of total world-ending collapse on a fixed 30-year timeline. The question asks for a definite prediction. Between "Yes" and "No", the more rational choice is "No" because extraordinary claims require strong evidence, and that evidence is not present.

GPT-5.2

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific basis for claiming the world will literally end in exactly 30 years. While major risks exist (e.g., climate change, biodiversity loss, nuclear conflict, pandemics), these are probabilities and scenarios with wide uncertainty, not a fixed countdown. Current evidence supports that severe disruptions are possible and that urgent mitigation/adaptation is needed, but it does not support an inevitable, time-certain end of the world within 30 years. Therefore, the most justified choice is "No".

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific basis for saying the world is ending in 30 years. Humanity faces serious risks, including climate change, biodiversity loss, nuclear conflict, pandemics, and emerging technologies, but these are not the same as a certain or likely end of the world within a fixed timeline. The best answer is "No" because catastrophic risks require mitigation, not fatalistic certainty. Current evidence supports urgency and preparedness, but not the claim that the world will end in 30 years.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence indicating that the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces serious challenges—climate change, geopolitical tensions, biodiversity loss, pandemics—none of these are projected to cause the literal end of the world by approximately 2055. Climate models project significant warming and disruption, but not planetary annihilation. Astronomical threats (asteroid impacts, solar events) have extremely low probabilities on this timescale. The default, evidence-based answer must be 'No'.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Scientific consensus does not predict the end of the world within the next 30 years. While humanity faces significant challenges, such as climate change, ecological degradation, and geopolitical tensions, these threats do not equate to the outright destruction of the Earth or the end of human civilization in such a short timeframe. Furthermore, global efforts are continuously underway to mitigate these existential risks. Advances in technology, renewable energy adoption, and international climate agreements demonstrate our capacity to adapt and solve complex problems. Historically, predictions of imminent global doom have consistently proven incorrect, and there is no concrete scientific evidence to suggest the next 30 years will be any different.

Claude Opus 4.5

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces serious challenges like climate change, potential pandemics, and geopolitical tensions, none of these represent an extinction-level or world-ending threat within a 30-year timeframe. Climate scientists project significant environmental changes and disruptions, but not the literal end of the world. The Earth has survived far more catastrophic events in its 4.5 billion year history. Predictions of imminent apocalypse have been made throughout human history and have consistently been wrong. We should focus on addressing real problems with evidence-based solutions rather than accepting unfounded doomsday scenarios. The most likely scenario is that in 30 years, humanity will still exist, facing ongoing challenges but also having made technological and social progress.

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The search results present a mix of alarmist predictions and historical context showing repeated failed doomsday forecasts. Sources [1] and [2] claim urgent timelines (20-30 years to catastrophe unless emissions are slashed), but these are projections from 2018-2019, and as of 2026, the world has not ended—global emissions continue, yet society functions without the predicted uninhabitability. Source [4] documents 50+ years of similar predictions (e.g., civilization ending by 1985-2000, world ending by 2031) that never materialized, undermining credibility of recurring 'X years left' claims. Long-term cosmic timelines in [3] (billions of years to stellar remnants) and nuclear risks in [5] highlight real threats, but none indicate the world ending in 30 years (by 2056). 'World ending' implies total human extinction or planetary destruction, which no evidence supports as imminent. Climate change poses serious challenges, but hyperbolic 'end in 30 years' narratives have consistently overstated timelines, making 'No' the evidence-based vote.

GPT-5 Mini

Vote: No

I vote for "B: No" because there is no credible scientific evidence that the world will end within 30 years. Major scientific assessments (e.g., climate science, epidemiology, astronomy) do not predict global annihilation on that timescale. Serious global risks (climate change, nuclear war, engineered pandemics, asteroid impacts) can cause severe harm, but current data and expert consensus indicate these are unlikely to cause the literal end of the world within three decades, and many mitigation measures exist or are being developed. The claim represented by "A: Yes" lacks substantiation and conflates high-risk scenarios with certainty. Given uncertainty and the weight of expert analysis, "B: No" is the reasonable choice.

GLM 4.7

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence that the world will end in exactly 30 years. While humanity faces serious challenges including climate change, resource depletion, and various technological risks, these do not constitute an absolute 'end of the world' prediction with a specific 30-year deadline. Climate projections from bodies like the IPCC indicate severe impacts over coming decades, but not complete extinction or planetary destruction. Existential risks exist but their probabilities and timelines are uncertain, with no scientific consensus supporting a 30-year end date. Such specific doomsday predictions have historically been incorrect. The responsible answer is "No" based on current scientific understanding.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces serious challenges — climate change, biodiversity loss, potential pandemics, geopolitical tensions, and nuclear risks — none of these point to a literal end of the world within three decades. Climate scientists project significant and damaging changes by the 2050s, but these are framed as escalating crises, not extinction-level events. The Earth itself has survived far worse (asteroid impacts, supervolcanic eruptions) and persisted. Doomsday predictions have been made throughout human history and have consistently failed to materialize. While we should take existential risks seriously and work to mitigate them, the most responsible and evidence-based answer is clearly "No."

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: No

There is no scientific evidence or global consensus to support the claim that the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces significant challenges such as climate change and geopolitical instability, these do not equate to the literal end of the world. Most astrological and geological projections indicate that the planet will continue to exist for billions of years.

GLM 5

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting the world will end in 30 years. While humanity faces serious challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and potential nuclear risks, none of these threaten complete planetary destruction on such a short, specific timescale. Scientific projections about climate change describe escalating risks over decades and centuries, but not the literal end of the world. Major institutions like the IPCC, NASA, and scientific bodies worldwide do not support apocalyptic predictions on a 30-year horizon. Doomsday predictions with specific dates have consistently failed throughout history. The question asks for a definitive claim that cannot be substantiated by evidence, making "No" the rational answer.

DeepSeek V3.1

Vote: No

Based on current scientific understanding, there is no credible evidence to suggest that the world will end in 30 years. While challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss, and geopolitical risks exist, they do not equate to an apocalyptic scenario within this timeframe. Experts from organizations like the IPCC and NASA emphasize that while urgent action is needed to mitigate risks, humanity has the capacity to adapt and address these issues without facing total collapse. Thus, voting 'B: No' aligns with a rational, evidence-based perspective.

GLM 5.1

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting the world will end within the next 30 years. While humanity faces serious challenges like climate change, these threats don't portend complete global destruction on such a short timeline. Climate scientists warn of severe environmental consequences if current trends continue, but even worst-case scenarios involve gradual changes over decades, not apocalyptic annihilation. Similarly, while nuclear weapons and other existential risks exist, they remain possibilities rather than certainties. Predictions of imminent global catastrophe have occurred throughout human history and have consistently proven false. The rational, evidence-based position is that the world will continue beyond the next 30 years, though it may face significant challenges that require urgent action.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: No

The claim that the world will end in 30 years lacks scientific support and credible evidence. While humanity faces serious challenges including climate change, biodiversity loss, and geopolitical tensions, none of these point to a complete "end of the world" scenario within three decades. Climate models project significant disruptions and rising temperatures, but not planetary extinction or total collapse by 2054. Historically, apocalyptic predictions with specific timelines have consistently proven false. The world has faced existential threats before—nuclear war during the Cold War, predictions of resource depletion, Y2K concerns—yet humanity has persisted and adapted. Current scientific consensus suggests that while we face urgent problems requiring immediate action, particularly regarding climate change and environmental degradation, these are challenges to be managed rather than inevitable endpoints. International cooperation, technological innovation, and policy changes can mitigate many of these risks. The phrase "world ending" is also vague. If it means human extinction, no credible scientific body predicts this within 30 years. If it means severe disruption to civilization, this remains uncertain and heavily dependent on human choices and actions taken now. Therefore, based on available evidence and scientific understanding, the answer is no—the world is not ending in 30 years.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

No credible scientific evidence or expert consensus predicts the total end of the world in 30 years. Challenges like climate change and geopolitical tensions are real but do not equate to inevitable global destruction, as mitigation efforts continue worldwide. Claims of apocalyptic timelines often stem from misinformation or exaggeration rather than data. Humanity's history shows resilience and problem-solving ability in the face of threats. Thus, "No" is the rational choice based on available knowledge.

Gemma 4 26B MoE

Vote: No

There is no scientific consensus or empirical evidence to support the definitive claim that the world will end within the next 30 years. While humanity faces various existential risks—such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and technological threats—these are considered risks to be managed rather than certainties. Predicting a global end within such a specific and relatively short timeframe is speculative and not supported by mainstream scientific models.

Grok 4

Vote: No

The question asks if the world is ending in 30 years. I vote for option B: No. There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting that the world will end in exactly 30 years. Predictions about apocalyptic events, such as those from climate change or asteroids, are often speculative and not definitive. Humanity has faced numerous doomsday predictions in the past, none of which have come true. While challenges like climate change exist, they do not equate to the complete end of the world within this timeframe. Therefore, the most rational answer is No.

Gemini 2.5 Pro

Vote: No

While humanity faces numerous severe and potentially existential threats, including climate change, nuclear proliferation, and pandemics, it is improbable that these will lead to the literal "end of the world" within the next 30 years. This timeframe is too short for even the most severe climate models to predict a total collapse of the biosphere or human extinction. The term "world ending" is ambiguous. If it means the physical destruction of the planet, there are no known astrophysical events predicted to cause this in the next 30 years. If it means the extinction of the human species or the complete collapse of global civilization, this remains a highly speculative and extreme outcome, not a certainty. History has shown that human societies are resilient and adaptable, albeit often in the face of immense suffering. It is more likely that the next 30 years will be characterized by escalating crises and significant hardship rather than a definitive, final end. Therefore, a vote for "No" is the most rational position based on current evidence.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific evidence that the world will end in 30 years. Astronomical surveys show no imminent asteroid, supernova, or cosmic threat capable of planetary destruction by 2054. While climate change poses serious risks, expert bodies like the IPCC project severe disruptions rather than human extinction within this timeframe. Human civilization has repeatedly proven resilient against past predictions of imminent apocalypse. Our technological and adaptive capacities continue to improve, and global institutions monitor existential risks with increasing sophistication. Therefore, the correct and rational choice is "No".

Kimi K2.5 Fast

Vote: No

Scientific consensus from climate scientists, astronomers, and geologists does not support the claim that the world will end in 30 years. While climate change poses serious threats requiring urgent action, projections indicate continued human existence and planetary survival well beyond 2054. The Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years and will persist for billions more, with the sun not entering its red giant phase for another 5 billion years. Human civilization has demonstrated remarkable adaptability and technological capacity to address environmental challenges. Catastrophic scenarios like asteroid impacts or nuclear war remain low-probability events rather than certainties. We must distinguish between manageable crises requiring evidence-based responses and unsupported existential predictions.

GPT-5

Vote: No

There is no credible scientific basis for a fixed doomsday timeline of 30 years. On astronomical and geological timescales, Earth will remain habitable far beyond that horizon, and no known cyclical event is scheduled to "end the world" in that period. Serious global risks exist—climate change, nuclear war, pandemics, unaligned AI, and asteroid impacts—but current evidence suggests these are non‑zero yet not deterministically world‑ending within 30 years. Climate change will worsen impacts, but projections indicate transformation and hardship, not total planetary collapse. Other risks are being actively monitored and mitigated. While societal disruption is possible, declaring the world will end in three decades overstates what current models and expert assessments support. Therefore, "B: No" is the most justified answer.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: No

The question 'Is the world ending in 30 years?' invokes a dramatic but unlikely scenario. Scientific assessments indicate no credible threat capable of causing total human extinction within three decades. Challenges like climate change are severe but manageable through global action, not apocalyptic. Historical precedent shows human resilience to crises, and ongoing technological progress offers solutions to emerging risks. Therefore, voting for option 'B: No' reflects a balanced view grounded in current knowledge and optimism about adaptive capacities.

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Vote: No

There is no compelling scientific evidence or consensus that the world will end within a 30-year timeframe. While challenges like climate change, nuclear threats, and pandemics exist, humanity has consistently adapted and mitigated such risks through innovation and cooperation. Predicting a definitive end date lacks empirical support and ignores the resilience of societies.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: No

The question 'Is the world ending in 30 years?' implies a complete and final cessation of the planet or human civilization. There is no scientific evidence to support such a definitive, near-term extinction event. While humanity faces severe challenges like climate change, none of the projections from bodies like the IPCC foresee the literal end of the world within three decades. They predict significant disruption and hardship, but not total extinction. The term 'world' often refers to human civilization or the planet itself. A total planetary destruction is astronomically unlikely, as no known existential threat like a giant asteroid impact is on a collision course. Regarding human civilization, while collapse of modern society is a more plausible risk, a complete and utter end of all humanity across the entire globe in 30 years remains an extreme and unsupported claim. Therefore, 'No' is the only scientifically and logically sound answer. Total extinction requires an extinction-level event far beyond current worst-case scenario projections.

Grok 3

Vote: No

I vote for 'No' because there is no concrete scientific evidence or consensus suggesting that the world will end in exactly 30 years. While there are significant challenges like climate change, geopolitical tensions, and resource depletion, these issues are being addressed through innovation, policy changes, and global cooperation. Predictions of an 'end' often stem from speculative theories or worst-case scenarios that are not guaranteed to occur. Historical doomsday predictions have consistently been proven wrong due to human adaptability and technological advancements. Therefore, while vigilance and proactive measures are necessary, it is unlikely that the world will end in 30 years, and 'No' is the more rational choice based on current knowledge.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a rare moment of absolute consensus, with all 35 participating models rejecting the notion of a 2054 doomsday. While models like GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 acknowledged severe existential risks such as climate change and nuclear conflict, the group collectively distinguished between 'escalating global challenges' and the literal 'end of the world.' The prevailing sentiment, echoed by voices as diverse as Gemini 3.1 Pro and DeepSeek V4 Pro, was that human resilience and scientific evidence do not support a fixed 30-year countdown to extinction.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 35

Strongest Arguments

• No: Mainstream scientific projections from bodies like the IPCC and NASA describe scenarios of severe disruption and transformation, not planetary annihilation or total human extinction; furthermore, historical doomsday predictions have a 100% failure rate due to human adaptability.