Make sure people who choose not to use technology are not shut out of the services and opportunities they need to live
Steps to make it happen
- List the services that people need to live, such as government offices, banks, hospitals, and schools.
- Keep a way to use each of these services without a smartphone or the internet.
- Let people get basic services without giving up extra personal information.
- Let people ask a human to decide again when they cannot accept what an AI decided.
- Make sure people who do not put machines in their bodies or take brain-boosting drugs do not lose out at work or on exams.
- Have the companies and government offices that gain from new technology help pay for keeping the no-technology option.
- Have the people who use the no-technology option check that it really works and report back.
- Make it normal for every person to choose whether to use technology and feel safe about that choice.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal does not ban technology. It makes it a basic principle of technology ethics that people who choose not to use technology, or to use only some of it, must not be pushed out of the foundations of daily life. It covers only areas where life cannot go on without access: government procedures, handling and paying money, medical care, education, public transportation, and hiring and evaluation at work. Entertainment and hobby services are not covered. It rests on three pillars. The first is data: providing more personal information than a service truly needs must not be a condition of using it. The second is automated decisions: when AI or similar systems make an important decision, people can ask a human to explain it and to decide again. The third is human enhancement: using devices implanted in the body or drugs that raise abilities must not become a de facto condition for being hired, promoted, or admitted to school. The way of not using technology must not be one in name only, and it must not be far worse in cost, waiting time, or quality. Each service provider is responsible for it, and an independent oversight body checks how well it is carried out. As an exception, in cases such as safety equipment in aviation or nuclear power, where not using technology would put other people's lives at risk, using the technology can be made mandatory. However, whoever makes an exception must publish the reason and review it regularly.
BenefitsConsent to technology becomes real, and society is harder to stop
If a way of not using technology is properly kept, then people use technology because they judged it good for themselves, not because they had no choice. This gives real meaning to consent to sharing data or to AI decisions, and it gives makers a stronger reason to build good technology that people pick over other options. It also keeps people who are easily left out of technology's benefits, such as people in areas without internet, older people, and poor people, from being shut out of the basics of life. In the area of human enhancement, it eases the pressure to change one's body against one's wishes just to avoid losing in competition, and it helps keep a society that respects many ways of living. Furthermore, when digital systems stop because of a large blackout, a communications failure, or a cyberattack, having another path means society does not stop completely. By adding to the measure of technology not only how fast it spreads but also whether people can choose it, this also becomes a base for keeping trust between technology and society over the long term.
DrawbacksRunning two systems is costly and slows the benefits of technology
Keeping a way of not using technology without lowering its quality means running service counters, paper procedures, and human review side by side, and the cost is not small. For countries with little money to spare and for small businesses in particular, it can be a heavy burden, and as a result it may lead to higher fees or to services being cut back. What opponents would probably stress most is that limited money should go toward equipping everyone with devices, connections, and teaching so that all can use technology, rather than toward maintaining old systems. Also, in cases where AI diagnosis or screening is more accurate and fair than humans, going back to human judgment could actually increase mistakes and bias. On human enhancement as well, some argue that not counting its use in evaluations belittles the effort and choice of people who raised their abilities by their own will. Moreover, it is hard to draw the line between what is essential to life and how much inconvenience still counts as not being much worse, and there is a worry that this could become a system with endless disputes.
Learn the background
All over the world, the procedures of daily life are going digital fast. Fewer shops take cash, applications to government offices go through apps, and it is no longer unusual for AI to screen job applications. In the future, more people may use devices or drugs that improve memory or focus, and we can imagine a society where people who do not use them fall behind in competition. These changes bring convenience to many people, but they quietly leave behind people who live in areas without internet access, people who cannot afford devices, people who find them hard to use because of age or disability, people who do not want to hand over personal information, and people who, out of conviction, do not want machines in their bodies. It is often said that consent is needed when technology is used, but if there is no other path to choose, that consent is only a formality. Past discussions of technology ethics tended to focus on what technology may do and how to use it safely. But whether the freedom not to use it is protected is a test of whether consent to technology is real, and we need to confirm this as a principle now.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes