The issue I most have with terminology like "blank's Golden Age" is that it heavily implies a complete scope of an exactly defined thing but it's often used to

The issue I most have with terminology like "blank's Golden Age" is that it heavily implies a complete scope of an exactly defined thing but it's often used to describe nostalgia for something ongoing - something incomplete, which it can't be bc it's scope is undefined and so no "best part" exists yet bc new parts are still coming - like "The Golden Age of Cinema" could easily be ahead of us for a stupid example that also demonstrates it's overuse and misuse. Who knows - maybe Islam will evolve into something more commercially viable, more able to adapt Western culture, and eventually become the most dominant global religion. That all could be only a prophet away - history is full of them, we're likely due. I know the Author doesn't think that a future golden age will happen but I don't like to count chickens. People may disagree with when exactly was the Golden Age of the Roman Empire but it most certainly isn't a future date. tl;dr - I dislike non-historical "golden ages"