CONTENTS
Introduction: The End is Nigh
1. Escaping the Wrath of the Gods: Religious Doomsday
2. A Swarm of Undead: The Zombie Apocalypse
3. Bring Out Your Dead: World-ending Plagues
4. The Age of the Machine: Technology Unleashed
5. Heat Deaths and Eternal Returns: The End of the Universe
6. The World on Fire: Climate Armageddon
Epilogue: The End is Never
Index
INTRODUCTION
THE END IS NIGH
It’s always the end of the world. Human cultures around the globe have been obsessed with this ultimate ending for thousands of years. Religious sects insist, as they have always done, that God is moments away from rolling up the scroll of the universe and exterminating us all. And secularists are no more optimistic: according to popular culture, an alien invasion is always poised to wipe out human civilisation, or our own technology has risen up to obliterate us in the form of armies of chromium robots or sinister computer programs. An asteroid with our name on it is hurtling towards us even as we speak. Scientists warn of impending climate catastrophe, and books and films flesh out those warnings with floods, famines and new global ice ages. Plagues and new diseases are queuing up to infect us all. I started writing this book before Covid-19 shut down societies across the globe, but I’m finishing it from inside that lockdown. The pandemic has been an alarming and surreal experience for all of us, but I feel it has been slightly more on-the-nose for me, having watched my speculation about world-ending plagues and collective disasters coming true all around me.*
This book asks why we are so fascinated by the end of the world and starts from the fact that I myself have long been intrigued by it. As you might imagine, I’ve thought quite a lot about why that might be. Writing this book has crystallised these thoughts; I now wonder if my personal engagement with apocalypse might have something to do with my profession. I write science fiction. A writer necessarily takes a professional interest in the structure of storytelling, which is to say: in beginnings, middles and ends. Knowing how a story ends tells us much about the way the story began and unfolded; it helps us to see what was important. Apocalypse is not only the ultimate end but is also always bound up with beginnings and middles, in much the same – if somewhat more complex – way. And while some writers concentrate on individuals and the personal aspect of living and dying, science fiction writers tend to project out from the individual to inter-planetary, even the galactic and universal.
Perhaps this starts to explain why stories about the end of the world are so ubiquitous in popular culture. From the Apocalypse of St John to Dr. Strangelove, from H. G. Wells’s Time Machine to The Omega Man, from plagues of zombies and space viruses to the giant blue planet of Lars von Trier’s Melancholia crashing into Earth, what does it say about us? Why did the press go into hysterics in 2012 at the idea that the Mayan calendar, carved in Mesoamerican stone over 5,000 years ago, came to an end on 21 December of that year? Though this low-rent apocalyptic frenzy now looks foolish, at the time it generated much excitement as the date approached. Why?
It is not, I think, because we are morbid, pessimistic or masochistic; on one level it’s perfectly sensible to be interested in the end of the world. There are lots of beginnings in life, but to quote from the Matrix movie trilogy, ‘Everything that has a beginning has an end.’ We are all mortal, and we will all die. One way of understanding our fascination with the end of the world is that such stories project our personal mortality onto the world. Just as we will each die, so the whole world will die at some point.
There’s a Latin phrase for it: timor mortis, the fear of dying. We think about the end of the world – we speculate about it, write books and make films about it – as a way of thinking about the end of our individual lives. Unique among animals, it seems, we are aware of our mortality. As you read this sentence, you are drawing air into your lungs but you also know that one day you will draw your final breath. It’s an alarming thing, but there’s no avoiding it. In the words of seventeenth-century poet and preacher John Donne, ‘Death comes equally to us all, and makes us all equal when it comes.’ The twentieth-century writer and critic G. K. Chesterton expanded upon this point:
There are two things in which all men are manifestly and unmistakably equal. They are not equally clever or equally muscular or equally fat, as the sages of the modern reaction (with piercing insight) perceive. But this is a spiritual certainty, that all men are tragic . . . No special and private sorrow can be so dreadful as the fact of having to die.*
Chesterton is discussing Walter Scott here – not a novelist whose reputation has particularly survived into the twentieth century, although a name you have surely heard; millions of passengers pass through Edinburgh Waverley Station every year, overlooked by the Scott monument and named after his first novel.† What Chesterton loved about him was his grasp of ‘the graver basis’ of our common humanity, ‘the dark dignity of man’:
‘Can you find no way?’ asks Sir Arthur Wardour of the beggar when they are cut off by the tide. ‘I’ll give you a farm . . . I’ll make you rich.’ . . . ‘Our riches will soon be equal,’ says the beggar, and looks out across the advancing sea.
Chesterton is right to pick out that moment from Scott’s The Antiquary, which sends a shiver up my spine. Maybe we’ve turned our lives to riches, or perhaps we’ve lived as beggars, whether materially or spiritually. The latter is perhaps more likely, and the more we feel we have wasted our life, the stronger we want to cling on to it. And the step from individual mortality to collective mortality becomes a simple extrapolation. If a person can die, so can a people. If a life can end, so can a world. And so we speculate.
There are two broad approaches in imagining the apocalypse. The first kind of story shows us the ending as a final terminus, Elvis finally leaving the building, and this time forever. In this category, we find accounts by astrophysicists of the ultimate fate of the universe, but also grim fantasies by writers like Byron and H. G. Wells that are bleakly unremitting.
The second kind of story is, surprisingly, much more common. These are works that represent the end of the world but make an exception for a chosen few; stories in which a handful of people survive the end of all things in a redoubt, or who slip away from the catastrophe through some magic escape hatch and start again. In Neal Stephenson’s novel Seveneves (2015), for example, something – we’re not told what, but it might be a passing black hole – rips the moon to fragments, making the annihilation of life on Earth inevitable thanks to a ‘Hard Rain’ of fragments that continues for 5,000 years. It looks like a pretty comprehensive ending of the world. However, Stephenson imagines a point beyond the end of all things in order to tell his story. He describes various small groups of people fleeing Earth in spaceships or lurking at the bottom of the ocean in submarines and then, with a bravura jump-cut, takes us fifty centuries into the future, when the survivors start recolonising the ruined Earth. In this type of story, it’s the end of the world as we know it but, somehow, we feel fine.
These two approaches reflect two main human responses to our mortality. Some of us accept our fate, either gloomily or stoically, believing it to be our final end; but others believe that the end won’t actually be the end – that we will somehow survive the ending.
Consider, for example, the recent boom in apocalypse insurance. You can take out insurance for pretty much anything, but lately some people have been insuring themselves against the end of the world.* It seems
like a win–win for the insurance companies – if the world doesn’t end they don’t have to pay out, and if it does there will be nobody left to make a claim. The customers taking out the insurance must be crazy, right? Not necessarily. Insurance, after all, is buying peace of mind. Behind the policy specifics of financial reimbursement is the more fundamental consideration that there will be an afterwards in which insurance claims can be negotiated. Insurance is a mode of hope, which is our best protection in the face of extinction. Who knows? Maybe the end of the world will be a partial rather than a total phenomenon. Maybe the smart ones are those who gamble that the end of the world might be the beginning of something else.
This attitude to apocalypse, it turns out, is so far from uncommon as to be the default. St John’s Revelation at the end of the Bible rains a series of terrible destructions upon the world, obliterating life many times over, only to cap his narrative with a surprise new earth and a new heaven, a paradise for the chosen few. The same is true of the Norse myth of Ragnarök, of the film Children of Men and of George A. Romero’s zombie movie Dawn of the Dead. It’s true also of the 1998 video game Apocalypse and the alien invasion movie Independence Day (1996). It seems to me that there is an interesting paradox at work here: the end is final, and yet it also represents a strange new beginning.
This is partly down to a problem we encounter when we try to imagine the end – whether of the world or our own lives. We can only think from inside our own minds – everything we think and feel comes framed by our experiences and assumptions. No person can magically step outside their own personhood and think purely objective thoughts. We can obviously be a little more or less objective in how we think about things, but absolute objectivity is always compromised by the fact that the thinking is being undertaken by a subject.
Death is an important case of this. We can imagine dying, but we cannot imagine being dead because that, by definition, means the absence of the thinking subject. Death is not something that is lived through. Subjectivity is baked in to how we think, in the sense that we can’t remove it and keep thinking. We can, of course, imagine some of the things of life being taken away by death: light being replaced by darkness, movement being replaced by motionlessness, and so on. But we can’t imagine imagining being taken away. We can’t think about the absence of thought, by definition.
As a result, we tend to think of being dead as just another kind of being alive. We may think dying brings us out of life and to rainbow-threaded cloudy cities, with the twanging of harps. Or we may think of death as being like life, but less so: cold, denuded and bare – lying inside a coffin forever, unable to move. The Greeks thought of the afterlife in such terms. For Homer, the souls of the dead continue to exist, but in a grim, shadowy place, drained of both menos (strength) and phrenes (wit). Something similar is true in the Hebrew Bible, where both the righteous and the unrighteous dead go to the same dark place, ‘Sheol’: a lightless place cut off from life and separated from God.
But both the cliché of Christian heaven and this gloomier pre-Christian afterlife illustrate the same problem: the inability of thought to let go of the fact that it is thinking and the fallacy that we will somehow still be around after we have stopped being around. If stopping being is still being, then being hasn’t stopped.
I don’t say this to mock you for your beliefs if you happen to believe that death is a gateway to some new kind of life, to a heaven or reincarnation – you could well be right to believe such things.* My point, rather, is how we represent this end – both individual death, and the death of the world – in art and culture. And so far as that is concerned, the tenacity of our imagination becomes the defining feature of the end of the world. That is why so many imagined versions of the end of the world portray a cosmos that stubbornly persists as it ends, and even after it has ended. It is almost always the case that apocalypse leads us into a transcendent realm, in which the miseries of life have passed away.
And so we turn our end into a beginning.
* * *
When we’re talking about the end of the world, are we talking about the front end or the back end? Lots of things have both, from trains and snakes to conga lines. But thinking about ‘the end of the world’ in this context imparts a strange spin to the notion. I’m going to assume that your first thought was that it is the world’s back end. It is, after all, the last bit that we will encounter before it’s all over, the curtain call, the fag end, the last page of the book. But what if the end of the world is actually the front end? After all, it’s something that happens in time, and it’s hardly an original observation to note that we do not travel forward in time. You might think we do, but consider this: if we were travelling forward in time, we’d be able to see where we’re going. The fact that we can only see where we’ve already been means we must be moving backwards through time, hurtling in reverse one second per second with our backs to our destination.
If the idea of apocalypse as the front end of the world seems counter-intuitive, maybe you’ve been thinking in the wrong direction.* You’ve been assuming that we start in some place ‘in time’ – like John Bunyan’s City of Destruction, the beginning of Dorothy’s yellow brick road or the first square of the board game The Game of Life – and then walk forward from there, along our path, through various adventures, until we reach our destination: our Emerald City. But what if, instead of moving forwards, we are moving backwards? We can reach our arms back a little way and grope into our immediate future, but we can’t turn our heads far enough around to see where we are going. Despite this, we have no option but to keep going, our backs to our destination. We can see our past – indeed, most of us are hypnotised by the view and stare at it, whether longingly (it looks so much nicer than where we presently are) or in horror (such trauma!). For many of us, what we can see absorbs our attention, but where we are going is not visible. That fact ought to occupy our minds a little more than it does – we are moving backwards into our lives, with no real sense of what is behind us. Maybe it’s a clear, uncluttered road, or maybe we are about to crash into a brick wall.
Asking why we are engaged in this crazy behaviour is tantamount to asking why we exist. We run because the alternative is to be motionless, which is not being alive at all. So whether we run with the vigour of youth or the exhaustion of age, we run, and this is just how things are. We are all running together, and in a direction we can’t see. From time to time, individuals stumble and fall and their race is over, but the rest of us continue our bizarre backwards marathon.
What is behind us? Where will the race come to an end? And how far behind us is it? Maybe the pothole of a heart attack will trip us up, or perhaps a stretch of quicksand named ‘cancer’ will bog us down. Maybe we’ll keep running until our legs give out and we fall, or maybe we will tumble over a cliff edge into an abyss. Maybe the absolute end to the race for everyone is right behind us. We can never know. All we can know is that it’s there and try to make our peace with it.
* * *
We all deal with our knowledge of mortality in different ways. We might simply ignore it, although that’s not a very healthy way of living. The brute fact of it might make us fearful, or we might find a kind of existential tranquillity in its inevitability.
My personal preference for handling it – humour – is not universally popular, and you may decide that my larger arguments about the end of the world here are undermined by my predilection for joking. To each their own.
I can hardly defend my own ‘jokes’, several examples of which you have already encountered if you’ve read this far, but I would note that humour looms large in the story of the apocalypse. This is why so much apocalyptic fantasy is so kitsch and over-the-top, so melodramatic and heightened. A book like Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s Good Omens (1990) styles the apocalypse of St John as comedy, combining satire and a broader comic sensibility into something that is both profound and hilarious. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg’s This Is the End (2013) treats
the same topic with vulgar slapstick and cynicism. Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964) treats the end of the world by nuclear war as black comedy. ‘You’ve got to laugh,’ as the adage has it, ‘or you’d cry.’
My approach in this book is comic, but that does not mean it is not serious – I’m not trying to make light of what is often a painful matter, and I have attended too many funerals to be dismissive of bereavement. But comedy, because it reshapes contradiction and paradox into hilarity and makes our fears pleasurable, seems to me precisely the right way to address the issue of apocalypse.
Fantasies of the end take many different approaches: funny, inventive, ghastly, far-fetched and scarily realistic. It is fertile territory for our imaginations. But if we look more closely at the way we tell our stories, we can see that how we portray the end can also tell us much about how we understand the world and the people around us, not just about how we think about our mortality. They can illustrate our dread of judgement, the importance we place on our societal connections, the darker side of our own human nature. From religious doomsdays and swarms of monsters to biological plague and technological doom, from the winding down of the universe to environmental catastrophe, in these pages we’ll explore not just our fear of death, but more importantly all the things we’re really afraid of in life.
But first I need to persuade you that the title of this introduction is correct: the world is going to end much sooner than you think. But first, like a stock character from a cartoon walking the streets wearing a sandwich board bearing the legend the end is nigh, I need to persuade you that the title of this introduction is correct: the world is going to end much sooner than you think. Humans have predicted the end of the world for thousands of years, yet it is always presented as imminent. If it appears contradictory to suggest that something can be imminent for millennia that’s because it is – imminent means that it’s happening very soon, and there’s nothing immediate about a timespan of tens of centuries. In the words of the Smiths, how soon is now?
It's the End of the World : But What Are We Really Afraid Of? (9781783964758) Page 1
