There is an urgent need to examine whether the spread of robots brings welfare and progress per se. We have to ask ourselves what happens if human labour becomes unnecessary within the traditional production and service structure.
We do not know yet what conditions are needed in addition to financial security to ensure that people remain healthy (in terms of mental and physical wellbeing), happy and active.
Surely, robotics and artificial intelligence promise real advantages in the short and medium term in terms of effectiveness and economy, not only for production and trade but also in areas where human intelligence hitherto meant that there were only human workers.
Yet, there is a clear danger that the number of jobs in the field of robotics, which require higher skills, might not increase to match the number of jobs which are expected to be lost in areas such as transport, logistics and office work, or in the customer service sector where large numbers of sometimes low-skilled people work.
It also raises the issue of motivating people in order to maintain prosperity and development, by preventing them from being discouraged to learn and study.
Therefore, it is essential to pave the way for the next generation through education, so that our children are able to live fully productive lives in a world changed by robotisation and automation.
Life skills and social skills will be the most important element in education. I am certain that, in addition to schools teaching academic knowledge, children need to acquire thinking skills to be able to question, and creative skills to be able to put ideas into action.
Lifelong learning needs to be realised and revitalised through lifelong acting. I am also of the opinion that digital competences need to be part of the basic curriculum.
Another important aspect in my view is the fact that certain elements of cyber-physical systems (CPS) can be worn on the human body or even implanted in the human body. This raises far-reaching ethical, human rights and social-philosophical questions, particularly with regard to self-determination, personal integrity and data protection.
I am certain that it should be a basic principle that nobody can be discriminated against because a CPS or another enabling technology is an integral part of their body, whether the smart technology has been implanted in the human body to treat a condition, compensate for a disability or improve the capabilities of the human body.
From a data protection aspect, it must be a basic principle that it is the person wearing the device who has the right to dispose of devices worn on or in the human body and of the data collected by these devices.
However, other, much more difficult questions must also be answered: Where is the point at which humans cease to be humans and become robots? Can such integration of the human body and CPS systems result in human rights being conferred on robots?
Today, this might seem like science fiction, but I think that research should be carried out sooner rather than later to determine whether there is a difference between the rights of a robotic human (i.e. integrated with CPS) and those of a human robot (for example, the capacity to learn, feel emotions and potentially become somewhat conscious or even a rights holder).