I came across the term "humanist technologist", which is what Prof. John Maeda calls himself. I'm not sure if this is an oxymoron. You will often see these two words used in opposition not in unison. People align themselves to one of the camps - it's quite black and white.
The predicament that technologists find themselves in is that they see technology as good and so more technology must be better. The technologists motto is:
I do because I can.
This is where we get ourselves into trouble. This attitude allows technologists to be seduced by the "beauty" of the technology itself; so technology for technology's sake. Humanists (and I would like to think that user-centered design practitioners belong to this set) have a different motto:
I do because I care.
Both of these are mindsets. This is something I've always said about user-centred design and user experience. It's not really about the tools and techniques (although knowing how to use them help), it's about what drives you. Call it a philosophy, a human imperative, a state of mind. So long as you are constantly ensuring that your technology solution is making a positive contribution to the user and society, then you can happily call yourself a "humanist technologist".
Sometimes, even to me this can be a bit too fluffy and philanthropic. In a business world, I like one of the Agile imperatives:
I do because I add business value.
This makes sense to me as it doesn't imply technology or user centricity. In fact, it sounds more like "success-centric design". Isn't that just plain obvious? When the business, the technology and the users are all given respectful consideration, we have the right mindset to maximise success.