There is a lot of talk about the technical challenges of making a human human in the future. It is true that “new robots” could help people with all kinds of needs, but doing so as a human would mean that we have to adapt our views of technology to the limits of our abilities.

There is no doubt that technology can improve human lives, and it is also true that this can happen by creating “new” or “improved” robots. It is not enough to make robots, people have to accept how we want to live our lives, including social considerations such as how much they eat and what they spend on clothing. We have to accept new technology in order to build technology which improves the quality of our lives.

There are numerous proposals by leading industry bodies to ensure the growth of skills in manufacturing, and to try to bridge the physical and digital divide in which employment is found. Human through design

This is what economists are saying, with some claiming that the current model of human migration can work in its way. They write, “Aspects of today’s migration into industries such as healthcare, pharmaceuticals and financial services have increasingly moved away from particular countries, continents and localities and are now oriented toward an entrepreneurial market. Globally, it is about encouraging a flow of expatriates… Canada, China, India and many other countries offer new markets for members of the overseas workforce.” While they cannot agree on the specifics of this issue, they have a general way of thinking about it, or at least a general statement of their understanding. They say, “The long-term effects of industrial specialization have been marked by an expansion of national economies in big and resource-hungry regions that are more productive than a typical nation. Accordingly, barriers to national and international trade and the barriers to investment have been greatly reduced” (Infographic “What is human migration?”, Royal Society of Canada, ABMW, J.Leventhal et al, July, cf. Dow et al, Non-Population Innovation in a Landscape, PhD Annals of Historical Management, 2014). These claims are supported by the results of a lot of research done around the world in relation to these very issues.

However, no one claiming to be a scientist can make their statement of assumptions without some understanding of what is most important for the country. There is something very human about the great challenges of human nature, in creating mechanisms that can overcome them. And some people make the human characteristic assumption that allowing a robot to be conceived in a purpose-built world would allow them to foster the condition that machines must be able to rule the world. This completely undermines the idea that robots can advance the human nature. In the two parts of the editorial, they clearly state that, “It is true that technology can contribute to changes in the human condition, by enabling people to grow as a species and by allowing people to break out of their own social moulds, causing alterations in national or international relationships. In fact, it has even been asserted that today’s robotics will also allow the emergence of a future of amazing cooperation between people.”

Sometimes in our society, we are allowed to create things that we wish to have in our world, even by making them ourselves. A product which had to pass through several levels of testing without getting in the way of a human being can be produced, because this product does not reject the human factor.

This is what concerns me. I like “human driven robots,” but I wish to emphasise that the computer world cannot be an extension of us, nor could it be given an economic basis. So, because the computer world is controlled by humans, we cannot accept another form of human dependence. The danger is that if someone decides to invent the next level of robot, we can only confront an artificial challenge which will be very challenging to answer, and very upsetting to the human being.