Probably not.
I don't think it's at all likely that our world will become the one described by 'The Machine Stops' within the near future. A few scenes in the story just seem a bit stupid. For example, there is no way we would chop down forests for newspaper pulp. Deforestation is quite the problem, but I'm certain that if humans were to kill all the trees, it wouldn't be because of newspapers. Instead, we would be cutting down the amazon rain forest for more cattle ground.
But seriously, we should probably stop burning down the forests, we kind of need Oxygen to breath . With attentiveness to climate change drastically increased, and ever more climate activists, (Didn't we plant 20 million trees this year or something?), we are making quite the effort to prevent the atmospheric disaster featured in the story, and once some more people get their heads out of their asses, the effort will hopefully pay off.
Another aspect of the story that seems unrealistic to me is the lack of physical activity. While humans can be lazy, we value sports and exercise way too much to become as inactive as the people described in the story. We have cars and bikes, but that doesn't stop people from running track or cross country. Its as simple as the fact that a lot of people enjoy working out, and unless they are all killed off, people will continue to actually move. Human pride and competitiveness also go a long way towards encouraging physical activity. The World Cup is eagerly followed across the globe in countries that don't even compete (Hello China), and cultural sports are played everywhere from a young age. And with so much antagonism towards obesity, the chances of the average human moving in that direction isn't particularly high. Sure, the current 'perfect body' media culture can be toxic, but it's also serving as a barrier against Wall-E bodies.
The most important reason 'The Machine Stops' is unrealistic in my opinion, is because the text 'The Machine Stops' exists. For every single dystopic sci-fi novel we have, the smaller the chance we have of evolving into those worlds. By reading the stories, we get a sense of the horror and catastrophe that might happen if we proceed down certain paths. 'Divergent' warns against genetic modification, 'The Handmaids Tale' warns against controlling birthrates, 'Parable of the Sower' warns against Climate Change, and 'Brave New World' warns against getting lit. With these texts in existence, whenever we try to apply potentially drastic reforms, we can point to them as a warning of what not to do. This can already be seen recently, with pro-choice activists dressing as characters from 'The Handmaids Tale' to protest abortion laws.
If Forster intended to predict the future though, I'd give him a B-. He predicted our modern utilities pretty accurately, such as our internet and smartphones, but he was a bit too drastic in other areas. Which makes sense since his novel is an extremist outlook on a technologically advanced society.
I will cut him some slack, as he wrote the story in 1909, and didn't have the benefit of foresight, but I genuinely think even in the 1900s that there would be a better reason for deforestation than... newspaper pulp.
Of course, this is all speculation, and humans are capable of incredibly stupid things. So who knows what will happen down the line if McDonalds somehow takes over the world and supersizes everyone?
