How to ensure technology benefits society?

Thursday 05.03.2026, 10:00-13:00

EPFL Rolex Learning Center, Espace Hodler

→ Register (free but compulsory)

Assembly question: Under which conditions will technology contribute to a better society?

  1. Which technologies, for which purposes?

  2. Who decides, who benefits, who pays?

  3. Which policy and governance under deep uncertainty?

Organized by: Sascha Nick, SIC team, SPAN

Why this assembly, now?

Switzerland and much of Europe are on track to miss climate and biodiversity targets. At the same time, wellbeing and trust are declining, and inequality is rising, despite unprecedented technological sophistication.

Technology is often presented as the solution. Yet societies increasingly lack the collective capacity to decide what technologies are for, who they serve, and when they should be limited or stopped.

What makes ACA SIC 2026 special?

We will not debate whether we need more or less technology. We’ll focus on:

  • Purpose: which human and ecological needs technologies should serve

  • Power: who decides, who benefits, and who bears costs over time

  • Provisioning systems: how technology reshapes housing, mobility, food, care, energy, and information

Technologies are treated as part of broader social, economic, and ecological systems. Without clear societal orientation, technologies tend to amplify inequalities, externalize costs, and lock societies into dependencies. With such an orientation, some technologies can support wellbeing, resilience, and ecological integrity.

What participants will do

During the assembly, participants will:

  • Explore contrasting societal futures and development pathways

  • Deliberate across multiple domains, rather than isolated technologies

  • Develop clear, actionable proposals that specify conditions under which technologies should be developed, governed, constrained, or rejected

The focus is on defining conditions and governance principles, and on making trade-offs explicit, not on producing wish lists or techno-optimistic narratives.

Who this assembly is for

This assembly is open to people interested in technology and innovation who want to engage seriously with their societal implications.

No prior expertise in policy, economics, or social sciences is required. Curiosity, openness to dialogue, and willingness to question assumptions are essential.

Preparation: required

To ensure meaningful deliberation in a compact 2-hour assembly, participants are asked to spend 60–90 minutes preparing in advance.

Why participate?

If technology is not explicitly oriented toward collective wellbeing, it will tend to be used for capital accumulation and control, regardless of initial intentions.

Goal: reclaim the power to choose

  • what technologies are developed,

  • how they are governed,

  • and when restraint is the better option.

Your contribution helps shape a more deliberate, democratic, and responsible relationship between technology and society.

Preparatory reading and questions to reflect on

Minimum preparation 60–90 min path

  1. (10 min) Planetary boundaries overview + short video

  2. (20–30 min) Max-Neef needs/satisfiers (selected pages)

  3. (20 min) Winner or Stoddard et al. (choose one)

  4. (10–30 min) Reflection questions (below)

If you only do one thing: answer the reflection prompts in 5-6 lines and bring them with you

Big topics of sustainability (read if unfamiliar, this is the foundation)

  1. Planetary boundaries: Overview, video (4’) 

    • The nine planetary boundaries define the safe space for humanity, i.e. the biophysical limits which should not be transgressed if we want to preserve a livable conditions, such a stable climate, clean water and air, nutritious food, medicine and all the other ecosystem services which keep us alive. We have already transgressed seven of the nine boundaries,

  2. Human needs and satisfiers: Max-Neef, M.A., 1991. Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. (read section 2, pp.13-54); video (5’)

    • Wellbeing is a state of thriving, which involves full participation in society, a sense of prosperity and of leading a good life, based on the precondition of all needs being satisfied. Sustainable wellbeing extends this wellbeing to future generations.

    • Max-Neef (1991) defines nine Fundamental Human Needs: Subsistence, Protection, Affection, Understanding, Participation, Idleness, Creation, Identity, and Freedom

    • Needs are universal, constant over time, and satiate; Satisfiers are culturally specific and constantly changing. Better satisfiers are synergistic (satisfy several needs) and have little impact on ecosystems.

  3. Energy and materials: OWID energy mix 1800-2023; Circularity Gap Report 2025; Global material flows

    • The world has never experienced an energy transition: new sources are additional, but do not replace older sources, which continue to grow. Coal has not replaced wood, oil did not replace coal; gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar all were added, and each continues to grow.

    • We collectively use over 100 Gt of materials each year, of which 43 Gt construction materials, 9 Gt metal ores, 16 Gt fossil fuels, and 25 Gt biomass. Every single one of these material flows creates numerous climate, biodiversity, and human rights problems.

Benefits and costs of technological innovation

1. Winner, L., 1980. Do artifacts have politics?. In Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter, 1980), pp. 121-136 (16 pages).

  • Is technology neutral? Or is it reinforcing existing power? Technologies as “ways of building order in our world“

  • Reflect on the impact of the tomato harvester, and the role of science and research

  • “In controversies about technology and society, there is no idea more provocative than the notion that technical things have political qualities. At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions of efficiency and productivity, not merely for their positive and negative environmental side effects, but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority.“

  • “What matters is not technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is embedded“.

  • “In our times people are often willing to make drastic changes in the way they live to accord with technological innovation at the same time they would resist similar kinds of changes justified on political grounds“

2. Stoddard, I., Anderson, K., Capstick, S., Carton, W., Depledge, J., Facer, K., Gough, C., Hache, F., Hoolohan, C., Hultman, M. and Hällström, N., 2021. Three decades of climate mitigation: why haven't we bent the global emissions curve?. Annual review of environment and resources, 46(1), pp.653-689.

  • Three decades of climate efforts have failed to stop the rise of GHG emissions, for three main reasons: (1) Vested interests and a governance system that supports them; (2) How we think about the economy; and (3) Culture, high-carbon lifestyles, inequality.

3. Steinberger, J. 2024. What we are up against. Medium.

  • Fossil fuel industry and neoliberal ideology have created a highly effective and coordinated system of restricting democracy; at the same time democracy can and should be the lever of mobilization of climate movements.

4. Keyßer, L.T. and Lenzen, M., 2021. 1.5 C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways. Nature communications, 12(1), p.2676.

  • Degrowth futures make climate mitigation much more feasible, and do not require highly unlikely scales of negative emissions technology.

Big questions

  1. Low-tech and high-tech: there are many good reasons to prefer low-tech (resilience, community agency, local skills), and other equally good reasons for high-tech (capability, energy and material efficiency). However, governing high-tech is much more complex (centralization by power or design, less transparency, rebound effects, specialization with general loss of skill and agency, possible loss of redundancy and resilience). How to ensure proper governance is always in place? Who controls what? Who uses what tech for what purpose? What is the effect on democracy / energy / materials? AI is an excellent illustration of the above questions.

  2. Rebound, (de)growth, power, democracy: like any other global commons, communities must establish rules about what can be used, by whom, and how. For technology, current and future, this also included indirect resources like materials and energy affected by tech. Ultimately there are limits to growth, and these must be included in governance. This includes which human activities are acceptable, by whom, to what extent, and for which purpose. Just making money is not a valid reason.

  3. Values and culture: What kind of society do we want to live in? What do we value? How do we deal with activities and people we disagree with (ensuring both human rights and preserving limited resources)? How do we build this culture, and unlearn today’s damaging mental models (growth, consumerism, competition, individualism, domination of nature and people)?

Reflection prompts

  1. Select one technology you would pause. What conditions must be met to unpause it?

  2. Select one technology you would support. What are the non-negotiable safeguards?

  3. Where do you expect rebound to erase gains? What rule prevents that?

  4. Who loses power under your preferred condition? How will they resist?

  5. What should be forbidden (or capped) regardless of efficiency?

Schedule

  • 10’ Introduction, Q&A (plenary)

  • 15’ Examples: enabling tech

  • 10’ Form groups, define roles: facilitators, observers, note takers

  • 60’ Deliberation in groups

  • 15’ Proposal writing

  • 10’ Individual voting

  • 15’ Results summary (plenary)

  • 30’ Discussion / implications

All you need during the assembly

Don’t forget:

  • Keep the schedule

  • Stay focused on your group’s proposals

  • Respect each other

  • Please ensure (1) timing is kept; (2) everyone is included, respected, and has a chance to speak, and no-one speaks too much; (3) the deliberation stays on topic; (4) the observer and note-taker(s) are chosen and know what to do; and (5) group proposals are entered in the voting tool.

  • Please observe carefully the whole deliberation, and fill out the relevant box in the Observers’ sheet (under “Team Documents” to the right).

  • Please ensure key ideas are noted (don’t include names), and note draft proposals, as these will be the basis for developing the final proposals. At the end, copy the final proposals in the voting tool.

  • … can participate in the deliberation, but this should not interfere with the key role assumed.

    If absolutely needed, the person assuming each role can change; please do your best to avoid gaps.

Online tools

Click below to access all tools:

  • Access your Drive Folder including a working document and observer sheet per group.

  • Voting Page: enter your group’s proposals and individually vote for all proposals.

  • Please fill out our short survey - thanks in advance!

How does the assembly work?

 

Participants will work in groups of 8-10 people, led by a facilitator, and independently documented by an observer. 

Groups will deliberate, write and submit their proposals, and then all participants individually will vote on proposals from all groups.

Finally, voting results will be discussed in a short debriefing session, concluding the session.

This is a prototype of a future society-wide assembly on essential topics, for a truly democratic inclusive governance.