I wonder, as AI and machines become increasingly advanced, if a STEM era will also close and humanities re-emerge as a dominant field. Consider how much AI has freed people in creative fields, with much of the technical work now done in the "black box" of the machine, with the user having little STEM knowledge themselves. A few people will be needed to work them and create them, but just like computers started as tools for the priestly class of scientists, they are now every day objects for people who can't spot the difference between SoCs and ICs (like me, as I had to Google those terms)

I believe here is where Humanities are most important. To quote Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park, "You were so preoccupied with whether you could that you didn't stop to think whether you should." The middle of the twentieth century showed us the horrors of pure science: Eugenics, Nuclear bombs, industrialized factory work. Science has no morality; that is something we create. Who we are and WHY we create and learn is something that STEM can not do alone.

I don't recall who said it (Dawkins?), but someone said something to the effect of, "Any philosophy that does not consider the field of genetics and neuroscience as part of their conclusions is dead". I would agree that, while Humanities and soft sciences are valuable, they can not become separate from STEM and can include them in their thesis. This doesn't render the field irrelevant, or even require that they fully understand the full nuances of a neuroscience degree, but that they need to be aware of the results of experiments and keep up to date on the literature.