A Future for the Family
A New Technology Agenda for the Right
Over two dozen conservative thought leaders have united around a bold new technology agenda for the 21st century. "A Future for the Family" lays out 10 principles to govern technology in service of human dignity.
Technology is not neutral. It either serves human flourishing—or undermines it. Too often, today’s technology erodes the moral authority of parents, commodifies children, and outsources jobs that sustain families.
Here are the 10 principles we put forward to guide our governance of technology:
𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞. Technology should heal and mitigate chronic disease, not pursue radical life extension. We should palliate suffering—not artificially accelerate death.
𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧. Tech should support, not bypass, the female body. No renting wombs. No artificial reproduction that severs the link between marriage and procreation.
𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. From violent pornography to AI sex bots, today’s technology industry profits from dehumanization. We must protect human dignity from digital exploitation.
𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐩 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐬. Social media and smartphones exploit childhood development. We must hold Big Tech accountable and restore free play, books, and real-world learning.
𝐄𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. The business model of smart devices capitalizes on compulsive use and surveillance. Technology should serve productivity, not entrap users in compulsive loops.
R𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 and 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐲. Americans should control their own data. No more surveillance capitalism. Digital platforms must empower users with transparency and choice.
𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 and 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲. Right-to-repair laws. Open-source software. No universal mandates that weaken communities. Technology should serve local actors, not distant power centers.
𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤. Technology should enhance, not replace, human labor. We must balance automation with job recovery to sustain family wages and dignified work.
𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲. Home-based production, flexible work, and labor laws that support families—not disrupt them—will reinvigorate communities.
𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Space exploration. Stewardship of the natural world. Tech should expand the human spirit, not confine us to virtual substitutes.
This is a call to action. If conservatives don’t define the future of technology, others will—at the expense of the family. Let’s reclaim a technological order that serves human dignity. Read the full statement here. (The statement was co-authored with Michael Toscano, Jon Askonas, Brad Littlejohn, and Emma Waters).
Also, on Monday, my colleague and Brad Littlejohn had a piece out in The New Atlantis explaining in greater detail some of these principles, called “Stop Hacking Humans.”
We explain that technology promises shortcuts: more convenience, faster solutions, boundless choices. But often, these “hacks” bypass our human nature. The result?
Loneliness
Addiction
Dependency
What do we mean by hacking? Hacks exploit desires, bypass natural functions, and promise relief—often at a cost. Hacking the human person leaves us worse off.
Social media rewires teens’ brains for dopamine, not real connection
AI and VR replace relationships with simulations
Medical shortcuts prioritize quick fixes over true healing
From porn to IVF to AI, we’ve traded long-term flourishing for short-term fixes. Supplements have become substitutes. We need a better path: channeling technology toward healing, not hacking. Solutions like:
Reforming Section 230 to hold platforms accountable for their product design harms
Age-gating addictive content like pornography and social media
Prioritizing restorative medicine over quick-fix procedures
If we don’t govern technology, it will govern us. The stakes are high: our families, our humanity, our future. Technology must support the human person, not exploit us. It’s time to say no to shortcuts that degrade and yes to solutions that heal.
On the surface, I think this is a good set of principles to put forward.
I’d be really curious to see how you see this playing out in practice and not only in the governing of the models uses but how they’re developed.
There’s a lot of complexity in weeds that often gets missed.
I also would love it if instead of creating silos around governance like the right or left, US or EU, we brought together diverse minds and perspectives to find the common ground. This is way to big of a risk to lose ground because we’re busy fighting over who wins.
Honestly, if framed properly, I think what you have here could be aligned across the political spectrum. I work with people from around the globe and all political positions. I consistently observe than when we dig in, there’s far more common ground than is often credited.