I absolutely take inheritance into account when having backups lasting for a hundred years, but regardless of how uninteresting my data looks, we don't know if today's boring data would be invaluable for science in the future. We show slippers from 5000 years ago in museums today and they're invaluable. Consider the person who owned it, walking on a national treasure, unaware. Maybe, they didn't even like the slippers, found them boring. :)
I was thinking that DNA is a pretty robust storage medium. Perhaps we could use it in coming years to store data for long term survival.
Though considering these comments and the advent of mRNA/CRISPR, perhaps we could store data for future generations in our own DNA. That'd be fascinating if you could read journals or even audio/video of your ancestors from your biological inheritance from them. What if we could engineer an extra chromosome to do just that, then let them remix and recombine segments of memories so everyone's would be unique.
Just store your diaries in a line of yeast that produces tasty beer or wine. That could work. I wonder what the oldest yeast lines in use today are, and how stable their genomes are.
Or if you really want your data to survive, engineer it into a virus for your local species of cockroaches! Getting the data back could be gross, but it'll survive nuclear holocaust. ;)
The importance of those slippers is tied strongly to their rarity. So little survived from 5000 years ago that almost anything from that time is valuable.
By comparison, we'll create more data in the next ten minutes than entire centuries from our relatively recent history. Lots of stuff is getting preserved in lots of places with substantive redundancy for virtually nothing. Your slippers today are likely to be more valuable than the near-infinite troves of documents and photos and whatever else.
