Toward Humanity-Centered Design without Hubris

TL;DR

The paper critiques humanity-centered design for incoherence and hubris, arguing that grand, universal claims and long-term, transformative ambitions often overlook practical constraints. It advocates a humble, patterns-based approach inspired by Christopher Alexander, notably his Oregon Experiment, favoring emergent, participatory, and multi-scale design over rigid, map-like planning. By analyzing paradoxes such as universalism versus localism, revolution versus incrementalism, and longtermism versus present needs, the author provides concrete principles for pluralism, incremental progress, and ecological stewardship. The proposed framework aims to produce more humane, adaptable designs that are better aligned with real-world contexts and long-term earth-friendly outcomes, with implications for HCI practice, education, and policy.

Abstract

Humanity-centered design is a concept of emerging interest in HCI, one motivated by the limitations of human-centered design. As discussed to date, humanity-centered design is compatible with but goes beyond human-centered design in that it considers entire ecosystems and populations over the long term and centers participatory design. Though the intentions of humanity-centered design are laudable, current articulations of humanity-centered design are incoherent in a number of ways, leading to questions of how exactly it can or should be implemented. In this article, I delineate four ways in which humanity-centered design is incoherent, which can be boiled down to a tendency toward hubris, and propose a more fruitful way forward, a humble approach to humanity-centered design. Rather than a contradiction in terms, "humility" here refers to an organic, piecemeal, patterns-based approach to design that will be good for our being on this earth.