The Prophecy That Prevents Itself

Modelling to Be Ignored

In recent years, self-defeating prophecies have emerged from an unlikely source: mathematical models. These are not oracles but tools. They offer scenarios based on a set of assumptions, intended to illuminate consequences—not to predict inevitabilities.

A stark example came during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. Report 9, published by Imperial College London in March 2020, projected that up to 500,000 lives could be lost in the UK if no interventions were introduced. Policymakers, alarmed by the findings, enacted sweeping lockdowns. The death toll was far lower than feared—but rather than acknowledging the role of preventative action, some critics accused the modellers of hyperbole.

This was a misunderstanding on two fronts. First, the critics confused projections with predictions. Second, they failed to grasp that the model’s worst-case scenario was not a forecast of what would happen, but what might happen if nothing changed. The fact that things changed is what made the model “wrong”—and useful.

A Hole Averted

Another classic case of a self-defeating prophecy is the Montreal Protocol. In the 1980s, scientists warned that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were depleting the ozone layer, with potentially catastrophic consequences for human health and global ecosystems. Their warnings—underpinned by modelling of ultraviolet radiation and atmospheric chemistry—spurred a rapid global response. The 1987 Montreal Protocol banned ozone-depleting substances and is widely considered one of the most successful environmental agreements in history.

Today, few talk about the ozone hole. That is not because the danger was exaggerated, but because the projection stirred the world into action. The prophecy averted itself.

The Role of Business-as-Usual

At Viable Pathway, we regularly model business-as-usual (BAU) emissions projections. These projections assume no additional climate action—only that current activity trends continue unchecked. Unsurprisingly, the results often show emissions increasing steeply to 2050.

These are not predictions. We are not saying that these outcomes will happen. Quite the opposite: by highlighting the consequences of inaction, we aim to provoke intervention. Our BAU projection is, by design, a self-defeating prophecy. It is an unrealistic baseline whose value lies in its ability to stir organisations into action—to identify risks, prioritise mitigation measures, and plan for a credible transition.

The Limits of Being Right

This raises a broader point about the purpose of projections in sustainability. The best projections are not those that come true, but those that inform decisions that render them obsolete. This is the paradox of effective modelling: if it is successful, its outcomes will never be observed.

This can be frustrating for modellers and confusing for critics. But it is essential to understanding the role of projections. They are not bets on the future. They are tools for avoiding it.

Avoiding the Trap

To avoid misunderstanding, sustainability professionals must be clear about the language they use. A projection is a conditional statement: If these assumptions hold, this is the outcome. A prediction is a probabilistic claim: This is likely to happen. The former helps inform decisions; the latter is often used to justify them. Conflating the two undermines both science and strategy.

In the case of emissions modelling, the danger is not in being “wrong”, but in being ignored. A projection that fails to materialise because action was taken is a success. One that comes true because it was dismissed is a tragedy.

Conclusion: Don’t Be Right—Be Useful

As climate reporting becomes standard practice and scenario analysis makes its way into regulation, firms must learn to live with uncertainty—and to use it well. Projections will never be perfect. But when crafted carefully and communicated clearly, they can help avoid the very futures they describe.

The BAU pathway is not a forecast, nor is it a threat. It is a tool for steering away from danger. A good projection doesn’t prove itself by coming true. It proves itself by never having to.

When Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb in 1968, he painted a grim future. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” he warned. “In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.” His book sparked widespread alarm. Governments expanded access to contraception and family planning, while the Green Revolution boosted agricultural productivity, especially in the developing world.

The outcome? Mass starvation was averted, and global population growth slowed. In retrospect, Ehrlich’s dire projections were “wrong”—but only in the sense that they failed to materialise. Ironically, they failed because they were taken seriously.

This phenomenon is known as a self-defeating prophecy—the antagonistic cousin of the more famous self-fulfilling prophecy. Where the latter causes an outcome to come true through belief alone, the former prevents the outcome through pre-emptive action.