Pulse
5 August 2024
In June 2024, The Straits Times published an article about deathbots entitled ‘An Eerie “Digital Afterlife” Is No Longer Science Fiction.’ Through the use of virtual reality technology and AI, it is now possible for the bereaved to interact with the digital reconstruction of a deceased loved one.
Indeed, the digital afterlife industry appears to be quietly growing, with companies such as MyWishes, Hanson Robotics, Eternime and Replika providing the service of creating digital avatars of the deceased from their digital footprint.
To be sure, the use of technology to create or change digital representations of the dead is not a new idea.
The 2021 documentary ‘Roadrunner’, which traces the life and career of the American celebrity chef, Anthony Bourdain, uses his AI generated voice to read his last email which was retrieved after he had committed suicide in 2018.
Holograms of dead celebrities have been regularly used. For example, in a Dove chocolate commercial, Audrey Hepburn sings Moon River – three decades after her death. And Robert Kardashian, who died in 2003, ‘appeared’ at his daughter Kim’s fortieth birthday celebrations in 2020.
The trend of the digital immortalization of the dead is made possible by the rapid advance of digital technology and the pervasive use of social media. These developments have not only provided the technical means but also created the cultural and social milieu and conditions for the digital death industry to flourish.
The allure of digital afterlife is undeniable. The loss of a loved one can be a devastating experience.
With the advances in AI, machine learning, and natural language processing, digital avatars can be programmed to emulate the voice, thought patterns and even personality of the deceased. These lifelike digital avatars could offer much consolation and comfort by allowing the bereaved to interact with their deceased loved one.
As the ST article puts it, ‘Digital afterlife technologies may aid the grieving process by offering continuity and connection with the deceased. Hearing a loved one’s voice or seeing their likeness may provide comfort and help the process of loss.’
‘For some of us,’ it adds, ‘these digital immortals could be therapeutic tools. They may help to preserve positive memories and feel close to loved ones even after they have died.’
Yet, digital afterlife technologies may foster an ambiguous in-between two worlds experience for the bereaved. This is a situation in which the bereaved knows (by his intellect) that his loved one has died, but because of the sophistication with which the digital simulacra imitate the personality, behaviour and likeness of the departed, the bereaved feels that the deceased – although dead – is not quite gone.
As Nora Freya Lindemann puts it: ‘Deathbots … have the potential to prevent the two experienced worlds to merge and thus the bereaved from re-orienting in the post-death world.’
In this brief article, we examine the ethical and social issues and concerns surrounding the use of digital afterlife technologies from a Christian perspective.
SOME (SERIOUS) CONCERNS
The digital immortalization of the dead presents a number of serious theological, ethical and social concerns for the Christian. It is also important to note that these issues are not only the concerns of those who embrace the Christian worldview. They should also be the concerns of people with different religious commitments and even those with none.
Ethical Issues
A number of ethical issues immediately present themselves in relation to the creation of digital versions of the departed.
The first and perhaps most glaring concern has to do with consent. It is obvious that the deceased person cannot be consulted whether they would agree to being immortalised digitally. If consent was not obtained when the person was still alive, digitalising his likeness after his death may be regarded as a violation of his dignity and autonomy.
As Carl Öhman and Luciano Floridi explain: human dignity ‘requires that digital remains, seen as the informational corpse of the deceased, may not be used solely as a means to an end, such as profit, but regarded instead as an entity holding an inherent value.’
The second ethical issue surrounds the whole question of data privacy. The creation of the digital version of a departed loved one requires a considerable amount of data input. The more personal data that goes into the system, the more realistic is the avatar.
This raises the question: Who owns this data, and how is it protected? The risk of data breaches and unauthorised use – which may have adverse consequences to the reputation of the deceased or that of his living family members – cannot be overlooked.
As the ST article puts it: ‘Companies could exploit digital immortals for commercial gain, using them to advertise products or services. Digital personas could be altered to convey messages or behaviours the deceased would never have endorsed.’
Negative Emotional Impact
While the creation of digital versions of a departed loved one may in some ways help the bereaved, there are dark and hidden risks that can be damaging in the long run.
As I have already alluded to above, digital afterlife technologies may foster a two-worlds experience for the bereaved in a way that is not only unhelpful but could also be detrimental to the wellbeing of the bereaved. In many ways, the two-world experience is common in the grieving process, especially in the early stages.
But if the grieving process is to be successful, the bereaved must make a full transition to the post-death world. As Lindemann explains:
… in a successful grief process the death of the deceased person is fully (not only intellectually) acknowledged. The deceased needs to move from an imagined status of not-being-alive-but-also-not-being-dead to an accepted status of being dead. Grief thus constitutes a recognition of loss.
Users of digital afterlife technologies may develop an enslaving emotional reliance on them. They can become so dependent on their pseudo-bonds with the digital versions of their departed loved ones, which are used to scaffold their grief, that once access to the technology is stopped, they feel that they are thrown back to the earliest stages of their grief process.
As such, deathbots can cause psychological harm to the bereaved by interfering with the grieving process and forestalling proper closure. The bereaved may develop Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD), which is a recognised psychological condition that can lead to a reduced quality of life and mental health issues.
Negative Social Impact
The relationship that the bereaved may develop with the digital avatars of their departed loved ones is at once superficial and absorbing.
It is superficial because a relationship with a machine operated by algorithms can never match the complexity and multi-dimensionality of a relationship with a human being. It is absorbing because of reasons already discussed above – it enables the bereaved to inhabit a world where the decease loved one is ‘still with him.’
But such a relationship with an anthropomorphised digital avatar, when pursued over a protracted period of time, may have untold negative effects on how the bereaved relates with other humans, including members of his family and his closest friends.
More research is needed to study the effects of digital afterlife technologies on their users’ relationship with other humans.
CHRISTIAN HOPE
Christians, more than anyone else, should be wary of the digital immortalization of the deceased. Christians have a profound theology of death and the afterlife, which enables us to recognise the unreality of interacting with the digital version of a departed loved one.
Most importantly, Christians know that death does not have the last word because of our hope in Jesus Christ, who, in the resurrection, has defeated death. In his first letter to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul writes:
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him (4:13).
This hope is expressed eloquently and powerfully in the Collect of the Anglican burial rite:
O Merciful God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, though he die; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in him, shall not die eternally; who also hath taught us (by his holy Apostle Saint Paul) not to be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in him: We meekly beseech thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that, when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother doth; and that, at the general Resurrection in the last day, we may be found acceptable in thy sight, and receive that blessing, which thy well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world: Grant this, we beseech thee, O merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.