The danger of Presentism
Historians and anthropologists have a concept called 'Presentism' which I think applies particularly well when speculating about the future.
Presentism is a term wherein present-day ideas, practices, and perspectives are introduced into the past. A good example of this is Whig history, where British historians wrote history in such a manner as to validate their own contemporary political beliefs instead of looking at objective historical context.
Historical presentism can also be slightly different, it is when you imagine the past by imagining the present minus something (say the automobile, or money), and then you try to cobble the past together using your present understanding. You start to imagine constructs that did not exist at all.
Now here is the crux: this exact fallacy can also apply to futurism! Here the situation becomes even worse because we have no objective historical context to work with, to throw off our present understanding of how things just work.
This is how you become trapped with eternal concepts, how things are today is how they have always been and will always be. This is even applicable to aliens living in totally different historical contexts. The only thing that changes is the (technological) objects which become subsumed or excluded from the present.
Everything you take for granted did not exist in the past in the way your understanding born from the present imagines it to be. Only with study of objective historical context can you approach fact.
Similarly, the future will not exist the way your present understanding of the world primes you to understand it. But here comes the biggest issue: there is no objective historical context to study. So I say be particularly careful when talking about the (far) future with present day ideas or practices or perspectives.