That we become oblivious to history, yes, but that means in consequence that history ends after a while because human beings have become oblivious to it. If human beings become oblivious to history, then there is no historical comprehension anymore; and if there is no historical comprehension, then there will be soon no history. “History” without historians and without people who are interested in history is no history anymore.
“Stories” have to be told in order to be stories. So only human beings can have stories. “Stories” of animals or plants are merely stories for us because we make and want them to have stories. All non-human-beings do not have any story, they only have information, and they communicate with each other in order to get information - not more.
Story is human - and only human.
That’s right, Obe. But to whom are they traces? Who interprets them to be traces? Non-human-beings know nothing about traces as traces, but as a kind of Information - certainly without historical information. Trcae is a word, a concept, a term, a definition only for us. Non-human-beings can not tell you what traces are because they have no human language. Non-human-beings have no story because they have no human language in order to tell a story like human beings do, and they also have no writing language in order to wirte and to archive artifacts historically like human beings have been doing for at least 6000 years.
One needs a human language in order to have stories, and one needs a human writing (script) language in order to have history. Great war - as an eaxmple for an historical existential - can merely defined as “great war”, if there is already history. If there is no history, there would be no great war; but even then, if it were possible, the event of a “great war” could not be identified as a great war and therefore would not be defined as a such. It depends on semantics, thus on language, especially on semantics of the writing language because the writing language is the pre-condition for history. And if there is no writing language, there will be no history. And also: If there is nobody left to understand what writing is and what history is, there will be no history - even then, if there are “artifacts”, because they are hence no artifacts anymore because nobody knows what artifacts are.
So, if that scenario will come true, human beings will merely be what they had been before they started with writing and - consequently - with history. They will not know what human beings are, although they will still be human beings, just like their ancestors who did not know what human beings are, although they were already human beings. The word “human being” with all its semantics is a creation by human beings with writing language and history.