I'm not sure if age is important but it's hard to tell a person's age from what they write. I'm into my 68th year. I write about things I see as connected with human nature and have a tendency to philosophise. I'm kind of serious-minded but I'm not always "on the job", I don't mind a laugh and, anyway, most subjects and maybe all subjects, even those that have a humourous bent, somehow - for the human-being - eventually relate back to human nature.
Over time I have evolved an agnostic outlook, I don't actually believe that the human race is some deity's chosen few or that the cosmos is humankind's playing field. But I have altered mentally from my previous atheist stance where I came to realise, I don't know the first thing about what life is. Simply because I don't know the first thing about what life isn't. And not just me, but maybe none of us, ever will. But it's a critical step for me - some would say taken backwards, for the reason that atheism is predicated on an absolute conviction that there is no god which agnosticism isn't. Imaginatively then, Agnosticism offers the possibility of a wider mental reach and deeper insights, these better harmonising with human thoughts and ideas that go back to times immemorial. Our having access to wider human traits in thinking and communication. The very epitomy of what it is to be human.
What I do know, we are consciously aware creatures, we are beings with the ordinary ability to think in clear and concise terms and we are intelligent life-forms with a capacity for self-discovery. Given that all of that is true, I hope we will develop societies that will make good and responsible use of the knowledge we acquire via learning, experiment and experience.