So. We are in the modern era. What comes next?

This is a serious question. The notion of history in the west, beyond the religious concept of the ages, kicks off with a twofold division between antiquitas and modernitas, the ancient world and the modern world. The Renaissance decides to fold in some middle ages, some media aevi, in between, but they are modern, they are current.

Eventually, people agree that the world looks fundamentally different in 1900 than 1600. Instead of coming up with a new paradigm, they double down. They divide the period into "early modern" and, yup, "modern."

Where do we go from here? Postmodern already has very specific connotations. What happens in 50-100 years if/when historians decide that the end of the Cold War, the rise of asymmetric warfare, the frakking Internet, smartphones or at least Internet-accessing phones in everyone's pockets, climate change, etc etc etc, has pitched us into a new era? Do we double down again and follow the problematic medieval paradigm with "high" and "late" modernity? Are we expecting the world to end before we have to decide what comes after that? (Hangover modernity?)

Is it just me or have recent times seen a revival/reformulation of the totalitarianism thesis as in the comparisons between Nazi Germany and Stalinism. With Snyder et.al. I feel like this has gained a lot mor traction recently. Am I wrong here or is that something others have noticed too?

Within discussions of post-modernism, 'total' and 'fragmented' history tend to rear their heads. I'm curious how people define social and cultural history, especially as fragmented, separate entities.