I think this is an interesting question in that it brings up two points. The media this culture creates (specifically writing, in general) is very specific but

I think this is an interesting question in that it brings up two points. The media this culture creates (specifically writing, in general) is very specific but very fragile. So eventually it wears out, and every year our storage media get vastly more fragile- photos from the early 1900s might last longer than stuff on hard drives if humans forget how to build those kinds of things. But (and this is what I find interesting) the oral traditions that go back (in what we call north America) go back 15k years or more don't "count" under the current epistemic regime. Generally this history isn't something most of the people I run into are aware of, and when people are aware of them they come across as fables/ folk tales/ lore and not material history. I live around a lot of native folks whose history has been often lost as they have been the victims of a vast genocide seeking to eradicate their culture. However, if you look online you can find discussions about oral histories around hunting mammoths, for instance. This has become a relevant discussion as the amount of genocide has eased up a bit and we have, for instance, native folks doing academic anthropology who can tie an archeological history of (say) large mammoth kills to specific oral narratives. So, I get what seems to be the original point (our writing will become less legible), but I also find some irony in the idea that people with oral traditions might know a lot more about their long-term ancestors than our rather ephemeral culture.