As Kermode discusses, it also helps people make sense of the world by providing an ending for it, which I feel is one of the most prevalent reasons for the creation of apocalyptic ideas. Humans witness endings for everything else, having mini-narratives or “epochs” in their lives that constantly end, and an apocalypse makes everything fit neatly in that beginning and ending idea.

More importantly, though the apocalypse is one of the oldest narratives, it is still one of the most prevalent because of its ever-evolving form.  Each generation adapts images of the apocalypse to their cultural landscape, which is happening more and more rapidly as humans create deadly technology at exponential rates. To me, this suggests a sort of collective self-centered-ness. Though each generation becomes more aware of how prior beliefs in world destruction have all been wrong, they still hold on to the possibility (or even probability) that their generation and culture is unique enough to witness or bring about the end-times.

Despite this belief of one’s uniqueness, Rosen says that all apocalypse narratives are based around the same three ideas, “judgment, catastrophe, and renewal”. These three things emphasize all the reasons a culture might “need” an apocalypse narrative. Judgment provides the basis for living morally, catastrophe provides a true ending, and renewal provides a reward for being special. The apocalypse is a tool that helps people understand their life and their society.