humanity will die out vs humanity is going to die out

When giving a presentation on the harmful actions of humanity on the planet, at one point I want to say "As a consequence of what I've said so far, humanity is going to die out."

So it seems to be a better choice than "will die out" because I provide arguments and so on.

So in the context of a research presentation on the causes of human extinction, this phrasing emphasizes that the extinction is a direct consequence of human actions. [true?]

I also feel like 'will' in the example above shows more certainty than 'going to'. So to my mind 'will' shows 100% certainty, and 'going to' points my attention to the ongoing-ness of this process rather than the final result, so it seems less certain and subject to change?

So is it generally a good idea to go with the rule that tells us to associate 'going to' with present evidence in order to use it naturally?


1 Answer 1


Both versions express certainty in the event which is yet to happen. However the version with less words, just using the word " will ", has the effect of increasing the severity of the statement.

Generally, statements that are shorter can be used to convey importance or significance.

For an example, suppose one person screams " are we all going to die!?!", And the reply to that would be a single word " Yes ". This has an effect of finality and inescapable-ness of the subject. As if the reply is so certain, it requires no other conditions.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .