Technology, and particularly computing, is essential to family history. Without it, we could still tell family stories to our children, but we certainly couldn’t substantiate those stories from billions of historical records into millions of family trees, as web applications like FamilySearch and Ancestry.com do today.
Soon you'll have the opportunity to become a wirehead: you'll be able to experience persistent intense pleasure through direct brain stimulation, perhaps via an implant or even wirelessly. It would be euphoric and, unlike the common pleasures of eating or sex, it could continue indefinitely. No matter how long you've enjoyed the experience, you'd be able to continue enjoying it. You wouldn't feel full, or fatigued, or otherwise uncomfortable. The pleasure wouldn't decline. Computer-automated modulation would ensure you're experiencing maximal pleasure, more than any conceivable alternative at each moment.
Some of us seem inclined to understand and speak of morality in terms of some specific set of values (such as those commonly advocated by self-identified conservatives or progressives), rather than in terms of acknowledging and accounting for values generally, including the conflicts and tensions between and among them. When I posit morality as my values, or when a subset of us posit morality as our subset of values, we are merely engaged in egotism or its communal analogs. On the other hand, there's risk of moral nihilism as we attempt to move away from moral egotism. If there's no static subset of values to which we can point as morality in itself, we might embrace the notion that there is no meaning to or value in the notion of morality. We might attempt to break dogma through a general embrace of skepticism and deconstruction, perhaps even to the point of identifying with such practices, rather than using skepticism and deconstruction as only tools among others for the practice of building enduring relations with each other. However, the rejection of static subsets of values is also compatible with embracing work toward a pervasive persistent dynamic reconciliation of values. From this vantage point, we remain immoral so long as we continue to equivocate between morality and values, except perhaps to the extent that morality becomes a meta-value.
What is the future of religion? Some expect the resurgence and ultimate triumph of this or that fundamentalism. Some expect the religious phenomenon itself to weaken and die, a casualty to the science of our day. Others, observing the history of religion, expect that it will continue to evolve, inextricably connected to and yet clearly distinct from its past. If such an evolution occurs, what will religions of the future be like?