But my guess is that the complicated process of naming things - checking to see who or what else is named the same, what names are “available,” considering how names work in other cultures — will become so familiar to people as they name their band, their book, their pet, their blog, their start up — that they will take some of that same approach when they name their children.
At the same time our culture will more and more demand unique names. As Clive Thompson points out in his article on Googleable names: “Ask.com says that 7% of all its searches are for personal names; meanwhile, 80% of executive recruiters do an online search for applicants’ names, and 40% of people say they’ve used search engines to hunt down long-lost acquaintances.” This state of affairs is not true in many countries and cultures today, even technologically advanced ones like Germany or France or Scandinavia, where names have to conform to certain rules. No illegal names like “@” or “Dwezzle” or “4Real” or “Devil” or “Anus” (all ones that have been rejected.) We are dealing with children after all, and in theory a name lasts a lifetime. And every system, even the adhoc internet, has legal naming rules.
But if we make changing a name as easy as changing a url, what’s illegal should narrow. This won’t happen overnight. But I’m guessing that a century hence the average newborn will get a name that is unique among both the living and the dead. I think that will make the world more interesting.
By logical extension, there may come a time when a country/state/city declares that unique names are mandatory. You must select a name that no one else has. Obviously this improbable scenario can only work if there is a unified database of names in use — which does not seem so far fetched. Your name would thus serve something similar to an unique ID number. I could live with that.
