I'm sorry if it offends but this is hogwash. Not an ounce of empirical evidence in it, well there is some evidence that technology will evolve to play a greater part in recording transactions.
There are clear and obvious contradictions with arguments that gold is the only true money.
1. humans decide what to use as a means of transaction - gold is just a pretty rock. Gold has a value because some humans choose to want it not because 'it is value'. Paper, Carrots, Coal, data on computers, and infinite other inanimate objects could be chosen a means of transacting 'who owns what'.
2. I'm yet to see anyone clearly explain how this system of gold backed currency would actually work (today is not the 1800s). Progress and improvement in living standards is predicated on the issue of debt - creating money to enable products/services to be dreamt up - designed - built and sold thus creating jobs that feeds back into the system. If the issue of debt is constrained (or it would appear by some gold arguments extinguished) due to the amount fo gold in the system - limited resource - then how would people be paid to create things? Looks like stagnation to me.
3. It seems the gold argument is predicated on an imminent collapse in monetary systems. If that was to occur what use would gold be? Factories closed, offices deserted, probably anarchy on the streets. I'm not sure holding gold would give anyone a serene life when there is no bread or milk on the shelves.
Do yourselves a favour and accept that gold is what it is no more than a counterbalance for currencies. A sort of counterweight together with a speculative instrument. It will not break out of a tight range, similar to other currency pairs. If one goes up the other goes down. The future is advancements in the use of technology to record transactions and record wealth.
Perhaps some would benefit from going back to basics and enrol in this free course.