3 and 9 do not contradict, they just aren't universally consistent.
Something that achieves 3 without sacrificing 9 is probably better (or at least more likely to be adopted) than something that achieves 3 but sacrifices 9.
3 doesn't require that the thing replaced be good. So both 3 and 9 allow you to replace something bad with something good. I only claimed that there are examples where you can satisfy 3 and 9, not that you can always satisfy 3 and 9.
But also, I think this thread entirely misses the point and intended use-case for this list.
When you cannot satisfy all criteria, the list does not become a justification for the status quo. Instead, it is a useful mechanism for elucidating the exact conflicts which a good designer must reason through and ultimately resolve (perhaps even leading to an alternative, "win-win" or "win-less lose" solution. Or not. Either way, the list helped think things through.)
How is technology not an aspect of people's lives? Not to mention, some aspects of people's lives might be good, but could be better. Should they not be improved? Well, not according to 9.
Something that achieves 3 without sacrificing 9 is probably better (or at least more likely to be adopted) than something that achieves 3 but sacrifices 9.