I'm pretty sure this is apolitical...
I just saw this
thread in the Zeiss forum, talking about how micro arrays could replace optical glass altogether. I’m not an engineer, so I don’t know if these would be any good for binoculars, but let’s say that they are. Let’s say in a decade, you could get a pair of binoculars with near-perfect optics for a couple hundred dollars. Alphas are done, naturally. Or maybe not.
I think there’s a parallel to be drawn here with the watch industry in the early 80s, when quartz timekeeping became inexpensive. Why pay way more for a mechanical watch that is less accurate? One would expect lever escapements to go the way of the dinosaur...but that didn't happen. Much of the Swiss watch industry went under, but it didn’t vanish altogether. Rolex had some hard times, but they survived. Somebody bought Breitling. Other companies fell under conglomerate umbrellas. Today, these companies are alive and well.
How come? A Submariner cost $7k. A durable electronic watch that keeps better time and has much greater functionality runs less than a tenth of that. But lots of people buy Rolexes (or Pateks, Jaegers, or Panerais, or Breitlings). High-end mechanical watches are objects d’art, and despite being functionally inferior to technological alternatives, command outrageous prices.
People will pay for “the finest,” even if that perceived value is of an artistic nature and entirely subjective. I think if anything, the alphas that will continue on. It’s mid-range binoculars and scopes that might be replaced by some sort of unforeseen technological alternative. Traditional glass bins will join fountain pens, straight razors, automatic watches, (insert your own peculiar interests here), and all the other items, that once functional, became artsy luxury items.
