I'm Ukrainian, and to me the world does seem to have hit a rough patch over the next few years. I've been watching the Peripheral lately, and there's a concept of Jackpot there as a series of very bad events that just hit Earth in 21st century (mainly man-made or heavily affected by human behaviour), causing a huge change in human civilization, and it feels like we might be experiencing the start of Jackpot from the beginning of 2020 as well. I hope that's not the case, and that this period will be over in a few years, after which we'll have decades of relative stability, so I don't think we should be concerned with the apocalypse. I also agree with the op that in case it does happen, money won't matter (including Bitcoin).
The problem of answering the question is mainly because 'apocalypse' is a vague term and people have attribute different meaning to it. Is a third of the world population dying an apocalypse? Is relative peace and continued global cooperation of a half of current population an apocalypse?
If we're thinking in the line of collapse of the Internet and globalization, then I think Bitcoin won't survive that. But if that doesn't happen, it can continue to exist and perhaps even be in demand in a world after a major catastrophe (or a set of those).

There have been different experiments, such as Blockchain voting, Blockchain for ticket verifications and similar. In many cases, it seems that moving to Blockchain is not easy and isn't worth it, which is why non-crypto blockchain projects didn't become a huge thing. Moreover, let's not forget that with Bitcoin, people have the freedom of storing their own coins and of participating in the market as they fee fit. With other ideas like the op's replacing politicians for deciding tax distributions, it can get tricky. If we try to make decisions somehow automatic and not controlled by anyone, we can get into a dystopia pretty fast and to a situation where humans aren't in control. If the idea is that people will have an equal say in such matters, then it's worthy of exploration but it's sort of like voting, and IMO there's a difference before regular people and professionals for a good reason (most people don't understand how taxes work, which industry needs how much of them, so that nothing critical for society collapses, and the majority might even vote to have no taxes altogether without realizing the consequences).
Bitcoin can't fix the world, but it makes a significant contribution to showing that more financial freedom that could have previously been imagined is possible. Reimagining other areas can lead to good results, good alternatives. But maybe not with Blockchain.

I believe the op's expectations of $30-40 by the middle of next year are reasonable, as well as the eventual $100k target. There is no guarantee that this will happen, but it's realistic, given that the bear market has been going on for a while and more than 6 months from now is a big amount of time.
I do also agree with buwaytress that spenders matter because they legitimize Bitcoin as money, show that it is used this way. So we should never tell people who want to spend BTC (not panic sell BTC) during the bear market that they shouldn't.
But hodling instead of panic selling is a good advice.

72'

How important is the USD to a local fiat currency, for instance? Can the local currency function without the reference to the USD? Yes, of course. But is it more convenient to determine its value by turning to the price in the USD? Also yes. Bitcoin is volatile, and determining its value solely by its purchasing power that constantly changes can be tricky because 0.005 BTC today and a couple of months ago can get to significantly different things. So fiat is a reference point, something that helps understand what we can afford for a certain amount of BTC, based on a notion that we have a good idea of what we can afford for a certain amount of the USD. Bitcoin can be spent directly, but I do agree with the op that options remain limited. However, it doesn't mean that it's not possible or that Bitcoin isn't money and truly needs fiat.

The media focus on what 'sells' best (what can bring money eventually because of being viewed, shared, discussed more), and negative emotions do just that. Neutral content is forgettable, cheerful content has to be particularly good to make it work, and something that invokes fear and uncertainty is more likely to stick in people's minds and be treated as important. That's why they overplay the Bitcoin bear market thing, milking for FUD.
Alright, then. Ukraine has been sort of crypto-friendly for years, but major adoption events happened during and because of the war. United24 is the official initiative of president Zelensky, and they accept donations in several cryptos (including Bitcoin), albeit via a payment system). Come Back Alive, the biggest non-governmental foundation that supports the Ukrainian army accepts crypto donations as well, this time directly to BTC, ETH, USDT, SOL addresses. And it's not just nominal acceptance of cryptos; we can see that people actually make significant donations in cryptos. For example, Come Back Alive received a total of 570 BTC, which is worth $9 million, even with the current pricing.

It seems to me that the situation is better now than it used to be. When Bitcoin wasn't as popular and the community was much smaller, I'd say there was a bigger risk that attention to it would die out after something like the Mt. Gox crash. Now we have much more people of all sorts: hodlers, early adopters, traders, institutional investors, some crypto-friendly countries, many companies that adopted Bitcoin one way or another, etc. Some can get worried, some can engage in the good old panic selling. But each time Bitcoin recovers from a big crash, it proves that it's capable of getting our from bad situation, and I think more people remain believers that it will recover next time.

43'

EUR 15,500
kryptonomous

So far, the list is small, especially if you consider the tiny population of some of these places and basically only Nigeria being a major country among them. IMO, given that the talks of CBDCs have been around for years, this actually shows how little interest in the actual implementation turns out to be. It's not significant enough yet to have any impact on Bitcoin. If CBDCs do become widespead, I don't believe they'll compete with cryptos. However, as side effect might be a less friendly stance of the govs regarding cryptos, along the lines 'use our controlled and regulated currencies, not decentralized ones'. It's still early to talk of that, though, as it's unclear whether CBDCs will ever get widespead, and whether that would have an anti-crypto tendency.

AFAIK Bankman-Fried left the train at the right moment and is unlikely to be held accountable for the bankruptcy/scam of FTX. I didn't dive deep enough into the story to figure out whether it was mismanagement of funds or a scam, though, so I don't really have an opinion on that. I am sorry for those who lost their money, and I hope selling assets and reimbursing the victims will be forced upon FTX soon enough. I don't think people will get everything back, but maybe at least a sizeable part.
The FTX crash gave an additional hit to an already bearish market, but it's nothing unfixable when it comes to Bitcoin's price. I think Bitcoin can recover from this till the end of the year (I mean, from FTX and get to the $20k barrier), unless another major event like this one happens before then.

I read a few articles yesterday on the World Cup in Qatar just to get in the mood for the start of the race today, and while I knew Qatar was a Muslim country, some restrictions that they have like covered clothes (for both genders), zero display of public affection, and alcohol restriction really make me wonder how the atmosphere will be this year (oh, and since criticizing the government is apparently also a crime there, we might not find out the true impressions until after the World Cup). How are people supposed to cheer, to hug when the team they support scores? And I think taking a T-shirt off is also not uncommon, yet this time illegal...

Still, a part of the stuff I read were the allegations of Qatar bribing Ecuador to lose the match, and yet the score is 0-2 with Ecuador winning. Not bad so far, at least the match-fixing allegation didn't get confirmed.
Congrats to everyone who got this one right, and good luck with the future predictions to us all!

Checked the pricing after these dates. Oh wow, they were extremely wrong and totally missed a start of the bear market. That, of course, doesn't mean that this time around we'll have the opposite situation, as the bear market may well continue into the next year. But it's indeed a good reminder that the media make terrible mistakes when it comes to predicting the price of Bitcoin, and that price predictions aren't scientific in nature. There's no science-backed way of making such predictions, and thus anyone is as good as anyone else in this matter.

13', Draw

I believe people should make their own financial decisions. While I strongly believe the market will recover and selling now at a loss doesn't make sense, I say people who don't believe in Bitcoin and its recovery should leave if that's what they feel like doing. One shouldn't hodl if one doesn't believe in hodling.
Not selling any BTC since 2013 is very impressive, but if by that the op also means not spending any BTC, it means that the op hasn't used BTC and thus hasn't benefited from that wealth for almost 10 years now. And what's the point of having wealth if you're not using it, not benefiting from it? Unless, of course, a person has other significant resources and BTC is saved up for something truly big/for being old/for children.
I see from the thread the op isn't planning to sell at $100k either, but does want to fulfil dreams with it. So is there a target, a point at which BTC will be spent or sold?

The previous bear market had a significant negative impact on altcoins, but it didn't kill the market completely and didn't kill trading either. This time around, some will also lose their market capitalization and never return to former glory, but others will remain and then experience growth along with Bitcoin when it starts recovering.
I agree that regulations are the future, but regulations should be centred around protecting customers from losing money by big oversight of operations of companies like crypto exchanges, not on penalizing users, depriving them of privacy and restricting their options. Moreover, regulations should not extend the practices that are related to other businesses, so that they remain reasonable and fair.

If Satoshi wanted to have a heavy impact on Bitcoin future, I don't think this person would have remained not only anonymous but also inactive for many years in the crypto area. That means that the community and the market can decide how Bitcoin moves forward, what it's used for and which services remain in demand. There is also a more general philosophical question of whether the creation truly ever belongs to its creator and whether we should aim at following the creator's vision or should determine the value and vision ourselves.
Reminding everyone of the risks of centralized services and the benefits of non-custodial wallets and transactions from one BTC address to another is an important thing to do. But we should also realize that many people enjoy centralized services and rely on them. So stricter regulations and accountability of such services is desirable, as well as people understanding the risks when they opt for centralized services. But I think that crypto exchanges are here to stay, even with occasional bankruptcies and/or scams.

To be honest, transportation is a significant part of the environmental impact and shipping goods is a part of that. And some supply chains just don't make sense. I've seen multiple times when ordering an international delivery how something travels in mysterious ways into several countries, very far from the straightforward road to mine. It also happens on a smaller scale when you order something within one country and can see how it also sometimes gets sent to places that are further than your location before basically going back. I realize that they're trying to account for the majority of deliveries and it leads to such things, but optimising the routes to ensure smaller travel distances even at the expense of longer delivery time would be worth it. Options like switching fuels and upgrading engines can also be of great help.

15'

Nothing particularly extraordinary has happened lately. The current bear market is bad but IMO not worse than the one we had in 2018-2019. So nothing unpredictable or devastating in this matter. As for the FTX story, it's a cautious reminder that centralized services can write you the numbers of coins that you allegedly own and store there, but they are the true owners of your coins and can basically do as they please with them, resulting sometimes, even if not often, in devastating events. I see no reason to give up or to worry too much, as nothing that harms Bitcoin as such and its reputation has happened.