The Previously Stark Boundary of Death Was a Blessing to Some
Predators like to push boundaries, and death is one boundary that they cannot overcome… so far.
It has historically created a stark boundary that cleaves those who are on one side or another. It can be a relief to be separated from a person who relentlessly harmed you, no matter what side you each fall on.
If you survive and your abuser dies, then their death marks the finish line; the end of an active struggle against them. It allows you to enter into the “aftermath” phase of your tangled journey. Here you may still have to fight against aspects of them: their legacy, their vast resources, their community, the memory you have of them, or the trauma they caused- but no longer the monster themself.
Their death gives you the space to start thinking about other things, beyond your immediate survival. You no longer have the threat of them dangling over your head like a knife. This relief doesn’t happen overnight, but freedom becomes more and more tangible the longer they are safely in death’s grip.
Their cage becomes your freedom.
The Unsettling Man Who Inspired This Post
I was reading Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s memoir, Nobody’s Girl, when the concept for this post began to materialize in my mind.
She discussed Epstein’s attempts from beyond the grave to intimidate his victims and deny them restitution. His legacy was still mobilized, even though the man himself was not.
To the extent that he could in death, he maintained power, control, and an attitude of irreverence toward his many victims.
However, something else in Giuffre’s writing unsettled me even further- something that Epstein wanted to do, but (at least to public knowledge) wasn’t able to.
She writes that Epstein had expressed a desire to be put in a cryogenic chamber so that he could be brought back to life when technology advanced far enough.
“Epstein had repeatedly told me exactly what would happen when he died: his body would be placed in some sort of cryogenic chamber to be preserved until technology advanced far enough to bring him back to life.”
– Virginia Roberts Giuffre
Since Epstein caused suffering right up until the end, and even after his death, I am inclined to think that he didn’t want to evade death in order to turn over a new leaf, but rather to continue on the destructive path that he had been on for decades.
For someone who had a blatant disregard for boundaries of all sorts, perhaps it is unsurprising that he would seek to overcome life’s mightiest boundary. He wanted to dominate it.
For now, this desire of his remains purely in the space of science fiction. But it won’t always be.
The boundary of death is already becoming blurrier. Technology can help a person’s heart beat long after it naturally would have stopped.
And as time goes on, that line will become even less clean-cut. People will be able to outlive themselves in ways that weren’t possible before- especially someone with as much money and influence as Epstein.
There are 2 ways that someone can “outlive” themselves: through legacy and agency.
Legacy
Legacy has always been a thing.
People can live on through the relationships they form and the things they create.
For example, those who built the Golden Gate bridge are still asserting their influence on the world long after they have died.
But there is a limit to legacy.
You do not get an active say in it.
A tsunami, for example, could one day wipe out that bridge. Their efforts may still live on more subtly, such as through any architect who draws inspiration from the former bridge. But this dilutes and mixes with other influences.
And there are examples of less well-tolerated legacies.
A dictator might be distressed to know that the statues that they built of themselves were promptly dismantled after their death, for example.
In contrast, Giuffre’s memoir was published posthumously by human arbiters who respected her wishes to have it published even if she died.
But technology is increasingly expanding our ability to exert ourselves on the reality that exists after we have died.
For example, I am a writer too and I currently have several scheduled posts. If I die in the meantime, then those posts will still go live, even though I am not here to physically press “Publish”.
In fact, if I were to die in the near future, my readers most likely wouldn’t even notice… at least for a while.
I would exist as an approximation of myself, aided by the WordPress platform and hopeful that they would not delete or lose my work one day.
My living self could impose herself on a post-me world and hope for the best. But this is predetermined, not dynamic.
Virginia’s human arbiters of her wishes are more adaptable than my technologically-powered schedule. Although, that also means they have more free will to potentially deny her her wishes.
Neither Virginia or I are billionaires, though. So that limits the scope of what we can accomplish somewhat.
With someone as powerful as Jeffrey Epstein, there is a lot of potential in the space after his death- especially because there isn’t a way for him to personally experience the consequences of it. No matter what doomsday device he could have set in motion, death can protect him from the consequences.
Agency
So far, I have talked about legacy- the residual energy of a person and the things they set in motion before they died.
But Epstein wanted to have a living, breathing (or at least somehow dynamic) version of himself outlive his 2019 death.
That is a terrifying thought.
In the future, I believe we will likely “die” several times. The famous quote by Banksy is that you die twice: once when you stop breathing and then when the last person says your name.
But I think the modern world will give us even more “deaths”: our last breath, the end of our digital presence, etc. A person’s biological death and the death of their consciousness may be two different timestamps in the future. Depending on the nature of his revival, if Epstein was put in a cryogenic chamber, then 2019 may no longer be the year of his “death”.
Hopefully in his case, death and time will hold him safely encapsulated in the past.
Not everyone who wants to evade death is doing it for the right reasons.
Who is Allowed to Live Forever?
When Gustav Klimt was commissioned to make a ceiling painting for the University of Vienna’s School of Medicine, his painting was met with backlash.
It depicts humans at various stages of life and undress, with a variety of different perspectives toward death, with a goddess in the foreground, and no nod to the efforts of medical professionals who seek to save and heal people. Instead, Klimt used his painting to convey that humans are ultimately pretty powerless toward death.
This upset the school of medicine- whose entire purpose was to use human intervention to diminish human suffering and delay death.
As such, they rejected Klimt’s work for decades.
Yet, according to Virginia, Epstein wanted to extend his life too. But instead of decreasing human suffering, it would have, to a reasonable degree of predictability, led to the suffering of many future victims.
The same goal can have radically different moral meanings depending on intention.
Perhaps more in line with what the University of Vienna was hoping for from Klimt, is a sculpture called Medicine Holding Back Death by Julian Hoke Harris near Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. It depicts a muscular medical doctor, pushing back against the figure of death.
However, for this same topic, in a different context (law enforcement, for example,) a sculpture might depict death’s arms wrapped around a figure like Epstein, or perhaps a soldier separating Epstein from life.
My point isn’t to say that doctors should let people die, or that police officers should kill people, it is that new conversations will need to be had over the ethics of death.
“Fighting death” isn’t an inherently noble or horrific thing. It depends on the intentions of those who are doing so.
Who is allowed to live forever? A pedophile billionaire? Someone else?
This does not seem like a decision for doctors to make, who should instead be able to focus on doing the best job for every one of their patients. But that choice should not be left up to pedophile billionaires, either. Epstein, himself, demonstrated that he would gladly seize that choice if he was able to.
And I see little righteousness in that.
Messy Bun Book Lover
Leave a Reply