Josie Ford
Feedback is the quirky weekly roundup of current science and tech news. To contribute amusing finds, send your submissions to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com
The Human Countdown
Alas, dear readers: we are not long for this world. Forecasts indicate that humanity will face extinction by 2339, leaving us with only a few centuries of existence (as of this writing).
This unsettling information was highlighted by news editor Jacob Aron, who came across it in a non-peer-reviewed study on the preprint server SocArXiv. In their paper, demographers David Swanson and Jeff Tayman predict that the global population will dwindle from 8.1 billion to extinction.
Their reasoning is straightforward. They argue, “By analyzing the decline in fertility rates from 2019 to 2024 and using a probabilistic forecasting method,” they note, “the world population will range between 1.55 billion and 1.81 billion by 2139… leading to human extinction by 2339.”
Swanson and Tayman emphatically point out that this extinction timeline is “just 314 years from now.” While Feedback thinks they might have rounded off their prediction to 300 years, we appreciate their misplaced confidence.
It’s worth mentioning that predicting future demographics based on a mere five-year period—particularly one that included significant global events—is problematic at best.
Additionally, the methods they utilized, including the “Cohort Component Method,” the “Hamilton-Perry Method,” and the “Espenshade-Tayman Method,” do not lend validity to their claims. Feedback suspects that our readers have already recognized the flaws in this prediction.
We briefly speculated whether this paper might be a satire or an attempt to provoke reactions from unsuspecting media outlets, yet given that Swanson presented it at a conference recently, they seem earnest. His presentation sparked a lively discussion, according to sources—oh, to have witnessed that moment!
Perhaps this is the groundwork for a new religious movement, with the apocalypse conveniently set three centuries ahead so that its founders won’t face embarrassment when it doesn’t materialize.
History Repeating
With a wearied sigh, Feedback observes that US President Donald Trump has dismissed climate change as a “con job” and lambasted renewable energy as “lame.”
His administration rolled out a report in July with claims made by “independent researchers” to support disbanding climate initiatives. An analysis by Carbon Brief revealed this report contained “at least 100 inaccuracies or misleading statements.” Across the pond, the UK’s Conservative party has vowed to repeal the Climate Change Act when in power again.
While Feedback would remind everyone that renewable energies surpassed coal to become the largest source of electricity globally in early 2025, which hardly seems “lame,” our thoughts drift to that moment in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the monks rhythmically smack themselves with wooden boards. One can only guess that these individuals glanced at the Swanson/Tayman study and deemed 2339 too distant.
A Note of Thanks
Great researchers are often those who can pose questions no one else has tackled. Such is the case with a study featured in the social science journal Socius in September: “This work would not have been possible without…: The length of acknowledgements in sociology books.” Yes, this is indeed a sociological study focusing on the acknowledgments sections in sociology literature.
The authors note that they are not the first to inquire about this. A certain Kenneth Henry Mackintosh completed a PhD thesis in 1972 on “Acknowledgment patterns in sociology.” Feedback discovered this thesis, stretching over 300 pages with, humorously, no acknowledgments section.
As for the new investigation, the researchers scrutinized 411 books authored by 317 sociologists, tallying up the words in their acknowledgments (excluding the 7 percent that had none—how rude!). A notable trend emerged: female authors tended to write longer acknowledgments than their male counterparts.
Additionally, books issued by university presses featured longer acknowledgments than those from other publishing houses. It remains unclear if these authors were thanking more people or simply elaborating further.
Curious about the study’s own acknowledgments, we scrolled down and found an impressive 218-word section that even included “unwavering love and support.”
Interestingly, co-author Jeff Lockhart shared details of the paper on Bluesky, only for another researcher to reply, expressing delight that the paper sported an extensive acknowledgment section. Lockhart responded, “We felt obligated.”
Feedback would also like to express gratitude to the cats for allowing the keyboard to remain unscathed during the writing endeavor of this piece.
Have a story for Feedback?
Send your stories to Feedback via email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. You can read this week’s and past Feedback articles on our website.
