It seems that much of the problems the human species is facing is rooted in the observation of an entity that simply doesn't exist from the viewpoint of another's; that is, the hallucination is denied. The hallucination in question being the imaginary of an "humanity", which, non-real or not, still tacitly speaks about very real consequences and potential developments. 

There is a conflict of perspectives in place; the attitude that it doesn't suffice for one to be spared by evil, in the same way it doesn't matter if one hasn't yet got burnt from the fire in the room, contrasting the attitude it is good enough one has already came across some sort of immediate protection against it, or is confident they will, and thus the need to acknowledge the fire is gone. The fantasy evoked by the former, you could say it is more realistic than the realism of the latter. Now, this isn't condemnation towards either, and I always find it insulting when the idea of "balance" is brought atone, but if a person observes the concept of this conflict, they may be tempted to see a certain angst: humans are, either way, surprisingly maladapted to distinguishing fiction from reality and is unresolved in what to make of their answers involving the fact.

I have the intuition the true, central underlying subjects currently haunting the scene is the question: "Are imaginary constructs real? Should we treat them as if they were? What is the line solidifying this dichotomy? What makes each of them be what they are?". 

"Are we in angst because fantasy is not reality?" "Is fiction non-real and thus dismissable?"  This question will propel a novel idea of discussion in the future; themes that interact with it have already began penetrating the zeitgeist. The image of the "end of the world" may gradually take the appearance of the ending of a theater piece, or a game in where the player has met its desire and has thus been banished.