The Death of Prophecy

In centuries past, people who were considered to be prophets saw the world, processed what they saw, and passed judgement on it.  The judgement they passed often carried predictions of what they thought the future would entail based on the state of the world as it was, and the history that led to that point.  We consider these predictions to be prophecies and we judge whether or not they came true as a measure of their credibility and merit.  What I find fascinating about this concept is that we only attach the label of "Prophecy" to predictions that were made in the distant past.  We do not consider articles in the New York Times or the Guardian that observe the world and make judgements and state predictions of the future to be prophecies.  Why is that the case?

If a prophecy is essentially a prediction of the future, why do we only consider those made in the past to be the only predictions that can be referred to as such?  Perhaps it is not the label attached to the prediction that is the crux of the problem, maybe it is the person making the prediction.  "Prophet" is a word that is heavily laden with religious connotations despite the fact there have been countless prophets throughout history that had no connection to religion at all.  Nevertheless the term prophet seems to be a moniker we have abandoned as a species, reserved only for use in archaic deference.

If the only requirements of the title of prophet are that you see the world, consider what you see, and pass judgement, then is it not fair to say that anyone who makes any prediction of the future is a prophet?  If you go further and add conditions such as a greater understanding of the world and the way in which it works as a requirement, then again you must ask, how do you define such elevation of consciousness?  The average school kid today learns many things which are far more complex than those learned by children of comparable age and standing in centuries past.  If they have an understanding of the world albeit shallow in comparison to the populous at large today, which is much deeper than the populous at large of the past, why are they not considered prophets?  Does the term demand relativism?  Where it's definition requires a level of consciousness that is above average for the time period?  Even then we can look to some of the greatest and brightest minds of our age and still yet we find people who have made countless predictions of our future, none of whom have been given the title of Prophet.

That begs the question, if it is a case of being a term used only in reference to those of the past, one that has become archaic, is Prophecy dead?  Have we already experienced our last prophecies, and the last prophet?  If we still make predictions of the future, what term do we now use to refer to those that make such predictions, if they are not prophets, are they simply predictors?  The term isn't quite as illustrious.