Digital Immortality: In memory of Gordon Bell

Khadiza Laskor had the privilege of meeting Gordon Bell a few months ago, and felt it was important to reflect upon his influence in the sphere of digital immortality in light of his recent death.

Khadiza is a third-year PhD Student at the University of Bristol’s Cyber Security Centre for Doctoral Training Programme. The programme promotes an interdisciplinary approach in researching themes associated with trust, identity, privacy and security. Her PhD – 'Governance in the Digital Afterlife’ – is an inductive case study exploring the possibility of anticipatory governance on ‘grief tech’

Chester Gordon Bell

In May 2024, one of the pioneers of personal computing died. Those familiar with technology’s relationship with death will be aware of Chester Gordon Bell¹ , who helped coin the phrase ‘Digital Immortality.’

Born in 1934, Bell was an electrical engineer and manager. From 1960 to 1966, he was an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation, becoming the company’s Vice President of Engineering from 1972-1983, overseeing the development of the VAX computer systems.

In the 90s, Bell joined Microsoft Research and later began working on a project to digitally archive every detail of his life in a digital format. With colleague Jim Gemmell, he developed specialised recording software, MyLifeBits. Bell died of pneumonia on 17 May, 2024, aged 89 at his home in California.

Microsoft’s Entry into the Digital Afterlife

In 2000, whilst at Microsoft, Bell co-authored a report entitled Digital Immortality², inspired by the enduring influence of historical figures – specifically, the immortality of their ideas. The report suggested that a personal archiving system, capable of retaining every aspect of one’s life (including emails, photos, books and recordings), could permit Digital Immortality for everyone. This process was described as lifelogging.

Lifelogging

When lifelogging first emerged in the 1980s, pioneers wore large heads-up-displays, computer backpacks and even computerized shoes, capturing photos, data and videos recording their lives.

However, lifelogging has now become a way of life. Almost everyone with a digital presence lifelogs, whether consciously or not. With social media posts, fitness tracking software and Apple watches, it is almost impossible not to be a ‘lifelogger’.

The Digital Immortality report

Entitled Digital Immortality, the report outlines an engineer’s thought process on how to achieve digital immortality, with brief references to the potential social implications. What is noteworthy is the possible uses of lifelogging; there are two types of Digital Immortality: ‘one-way immortality’ preserves and transmits ideas into the future, while ‘two-way immortality’ allows one not only to communicate with the future, but to also learn and evolve within it. ‘Two-way immortality’ would require the development of an avatar, which would eventually have a ‘life’ of its own.

Digital Immortality: 25 years later

My own research considers how technologies aimed at facilitating such a concept might be successfully governed. I was nervous before meeting Bell, as I am a sceptic; I was expecting a debate, rather than a chat. I also expected to see a camera recording our interaction; Bell was known to wear one constantly, as shown in the picture above (taken when he was a lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology). My nervousness dissipated when I was greeted by a smiling, yet frail gentleman, without a camera, who was just happy to talk.

Bell reminisced about his research, putting emphasis on lifelogging and memories, not immortality³. His main inspiration came from an idea from the 1940s – MEMEX: an aid to extend memories to supplement the human mind⁴. Despite being realistic about achieving actual immortality, I recall his awe at current Artificial Intelligence developments; perhaps ‘two-way immortality’ is possible after all?

We discussed whether social media is a form of ‘digital immortality,’ with profiles belonging to the deceased offering some continuation of a bond⁵. Perhaps surprisingly, Bell saw a distinction: the intent of Digital Immortality was apparently for private and personal use, not for the public. While he did not explicitly refer to grief or bereavement, those were the private and personal uses I recall thinking of at the time.
Afterwards, I remembered in his book, Total Recall: How the E-memory Revolution will Change Everything⁶, published almost a decade after Digital Immortality, of a potential future need to collectively decide if aspects of one’s life should be made available to the public.

The Future of the Digital Afterlife

I’m not sure why I looked up Bell months later, but when I did, I was left with an eerie sensation as I discovered his death had just been announced. I felt some guilt at the time, especially when I remembered Bell’s frustration at being misunderstood by critics – me included. This is due to more technologists innovating in the Digital Afterlife and increasingly reinforcing a technological narrative around death and dying.

I feel the emotional, social and cultural aspects are less discussed, but require further promotion, especially if technology is intended to help the dying, grievers and the bereaved. So far, there has been little public debate on the matter, though a handful of journalists and academics are exploring the impact of digital immortality and the digital afterlife on the dying and bereaved (which range from helping with grief to concerns around mental health⁷).

Nevertheless, what I remember more importantly and with great relief and fondness is that Bell clearly valued memories. The Digital Immortality he imparts is that future learnings derived from everyone’s life stories is far more important than actual immortality.

You can find out more about digital legacies in our Research Library.

[1]He preferred to be known as Gordon Bell.