Death as a Service: When Immortality Becomes a Paid Subscription

It is 2025. The average life expectancy in developed countries is 82 years. By 2050, this figure could rise to 120 years. By 2075 – to 150. Beyond that, the numbers stop working, because we are no longer talking about life extension, but about its radical reformatting. Death transforms from a biological constant into a variable that can be managed. The question is not whether it is technically possible. The question is who will be able to afford it and what will happen to those who cannot.

This is not science fiction. This is an extrapolation of data that already exists.

Three technological directions

If current research is broken down into categories, three main vectors emerge along which the science of life extension is moving. The first is cellular rejuvenation. The second is the replacement of biological components. The third is the digitalization of consciousness. Each direction develops independently, but all three converge to a single point: the ability to cancel death as a mandatory event.

Cellular rejuvenation

In 2012, Shinya Yamanaka received the Nobel Prize for discovering a method to reprogram adult cells into pluripotent stem cells. This means a cell can be returned to its «default» state – the state it was in within the embryo. Since then, the technology has moved forward. In 2023, Altos Labs, funded by Jeff Bezos, announced the first successful experiments on the partial reprogramming of mouse cells without losing their specialization. The mice became biologically younger. Their cells «rewound» several years back according to epigenetic markers.

The next step is scaling to humans. The projected timeframe for the first clinical trials is 2027–2030. If the technology works, it will not simply be a treatment for diseases of aging. It will be an opportunity to run rejuvenation processes in cycles. Every 10–15 years – a new session. Biological age is fixed at the level of 30–40 years. Chronological age grows. Biological age – does not.

The cost of the first procedures will be measured in hundreds of thousands of euros. In 20 years – tens of thousands. In 40 – thousands. The classic technology cost reduction curve. But even if the procedure costs 5,000 euros, it remains a barrier for 60% of the planet's population. Immortality will become a question of credit history.

Replacement of organs and tissues

The second direction is bioengineering. Growing organs from the patient's own cells, artificial tissues, synthetic substitutes for biological systems. In 2024, the first successful transplantation of an artificially grown lung was performed in Japan. The patient lived for 14 months without complications. This is not a record, but it is a starting point.

By 2040, according to World Health Organization forecasts, up to 30% of transplants in developed countries will be performed using artificially grown organs. This solves the problem of donor shortages. It also means that the aging of individual body systems ceases to be critical. Heart worn out? We grow a new one. Liver failing? We replace it. Kidneys shut down? Not a problem.

But there is one organ that is most difficult to replace – the brain. One can replace the heart, lungs, kidneys, even the skin entirely. But if you replace the brain, does the person remain the same person? The question is philosophical, but it has direct technological consequences. As long as the brain does not lend itself to complete replacement, humans remain tied to a biological substrate that degrades sooner or later.

The average time that can be gained by a combination of cellular rejuvenation and organ replacement is 50–80 years beyond current life expectancy. That is, instead of 82 years – 130–160. This is already a radical change. But it is still not immortality. It is an extension of the warranty period.

Digitalization of consciousness

The third direction is the most controversial and ambitious. Transferring consciousness to a neural substrate. The idea is simple: if consciousness is a pattern of electrochemical processes in the brain, this pattern can be digitized and transferred to another carrier. The biological brain dies. The digital copy continues to exist.

Technologically, this is still science fiction. But not as distant as it seems. In 2023, the Blue Brain project in Switzerland completed a simulation of 31,000 rat cerebral cortex neurons with synapse-level precision. The full human brain is 86 billion neurons. The difference in scale is huge, but the direction is set.

If we extrapolate current growth rates of computing power and progress in neurobiology, the first full simulation of the human brain is possible by 2055–2065. Consciousness transfer is the next step. And here, conceptual problems begin, not technical ones.

Let's assume your consciousness is copied to a server. The original brain continues to work. Now there are two «yous». Which one is real? If the original dies, the copy continues to live. But is it you or someone else with your memories? This is the classic «teleport» problem, only applied to immortality. And depending on how society answers it, digitalization of consciousness will be perceived either as life extension or as the creation of a digital twin that exists after your death.

The economic model of immortality

Technology is one part of the equation. Economics is the other. Immortality requires resources. A lot of resources. And the more people want to live forever, the higher the entry price.

Consider a simple model. The average cost of maintaining one person in a state of «biological 30 years» over 200 years involves regular cellular rejuvenation procedures every 15 years, replacement of 2–3 major organs, constant medical monitoring, preventive treatment. The total cost under current forecasts is from 800,000 to 1,200,000 euros. That is if technologies become cheaper as expected.

Who will be able to afford this? In 2025, about 1% of the world's population has assets exceeding 1 million dollars. That is 80 million people. If we add those who can save up or gain access through insurance, perhaps another 5–10%. Total – a maximum of 15% of the planet's population. The remaining 85% will remain mortal.

This creates not just economic inequality. It creates biological inequality of a new type. Previously, the rich lived better. Now the rich will live longer. Much longer. And this changes everything.

Imagine the world of 2070. There is a class of people who were born in the 2000s and are still biologically young. They have accumulated 70 years of experience, connections, capital. They control companies, political institutions, cultural narratives. And they are not going to leave, because physically they are still 35 years old, and they plan to live another 150.

And there are the rest. Who are born, live 80–90 years, and die. As always. Social mobility in such a world tends to zero. Competing with a person who has 200 years in reserve is impossible. He is always one step ahead. He is always more experienced. He can always wait.

Demographic collapse

Now let's add demographics. If people stop dying, they must also stop being born. Otherwise, the planet simply will not sustain it. Basic math: if average life expectancy grows to 150 years, and the birth rate remains at the level of two children per woman, the population doubles every 50–60 years. In 100 years – 16 billion. In 150 – 32 billion. This is unrealizable.

This means the birth rate must drop. Sharply. To a level of 0.5–0.8 children per family. Or to zero for those who chose immortality. You cannot simultaneously live forever and have children. Pick one.

This is not a hypothesis. This is already happening. In South Korea, the fertility rate in 2024 fell to 0.72. In Japan – to 1.26. In Italy – to 1.24. The reasons vary, but the trend is the same: the more developed the society becomes, the fewer children there are. When the option of immortality is added, the trend will accelerate.

A new dilemma arises: what to choose – to continue yourself biologically through children or to continue yourself directly through immortality? The first is an evolutionary program that worked for millions of years. The second is a technological alternative canceling the necessity of the first. And if you choose immortality, you choose not to have children. Because why spend resources on offspring if you do not plan to leave yourself?

Legal and ethical vacuum

Legislation is not ready for immortality. At all. All legal systems are built on the presumption that humans are mortal. The pension system? Calculated for 15–20 years after retirement. Inheritance? Assumes the owner of assets will die sooner or later. Labor law? Expects people to work for 40–45 years and then leave. What happens if a person can work for 150 years? Or not retire at all?

New laws are needed. But which ones? For example, limit the term of asset ownership? Forcibly redistribute wealth after 100 years of life? Ban immortals from holding elected office? This all sounds like discrimination, but without such restrictions, the system stops working.

Or another question: what to do with criminals? Currently, a life sentence is 30–40 years in reality. If a person does not biologically age, a life sentence becomes literally for life. 200 years in prison. Is this punishment or torture?

And now add the digitalization of consciousness. If consciousness can be transferred to a server, it can be copied. One can create a million copies. One can accelerate subjective time so that one second of external time is perceived as a year. A criminal receives 1,000 years of punishment that take 10 seconds of real time. Is this ethical? Is this legal? Unknown. There are no laws for this.

Two future scenarios

If we extrapolate current trends, two possible scenarios emerge.

Scenario A: Stratification

Society divides into two classes: immortals and mortals. Immortals are approximately 10–15% of the population. They control the majority of capital, technology, power. They live in closed ecosystems with access to the best medicine, the best conditions, the best education. Their children (if they have any) automatically gain access to life extension technologies. This is a new aristocracy, but based not on lineage, but on biological status.

Mortals are the remaining 85–90%. They live as usual. They are born, they age, they die. Their life expectancy also grows, but slowly. By 2070 – 90–95 years. By 2100 – 100–105. But this is incomparable to the 200–300 years of the immortals.

Social mobility between classes is minimal. Becoming immortal having been born mortal is almost impossible. The cost is too high. The barriers are too rigid. Formally there are no estates, but de facto they appear.

Scenario B: Regulation

States introduce strict restrictions on immortality technologies. Maximum life expectancy is fixed by law – for example, 120 years. After that, medical procedures extending life are prohibited. Or access to immortality is distributed by lottery, not by money. Or mandatory euthanasia is introduced after a certain age for those who used extension technologies.

This sounds dystopian, but it is the only way to preserve at least the appearance of equality. If immortality is available to everyone, the planet will not sustain it. If it is available only to the rich, society collapses. That means either ban it or strictly regulate it. And if the second option is chosen, someone must decide who lives and who dies. The state? Corporations? Algorithms?

Neither scenario looks attractive.

What this means for you

Let's assume you are 30 years old now. By 2055, when you will be 60, the first radical life extension technologies will become commercially available. Question: will you be able to afford them?

If you live in Austria, Germany, Switzerland – the probability is high. If in India, Nigeria, Bangladesh – low. If you are in the top 20% by income – mostly yes. If in the bottom 50% – mostly no. Geography and economic status will determine your biological ceiling. This is not fair. But it is the mathematics of resource distribution.

Now imagine you find out: the technology exists, it works, but it is unavailable to you. Your peers who earn three times more will live another 150 years. You – will not. How does that feel? As injustice? As fatality? As motivation to earn more? Or as a reason to opt out of a system that distributes years of life according to credit rating?

This is not a rhetorical question. This is a reality that will arrive within the lifetime of those reading this text now.

Will death be a choice?

Yes. But not for everyone and not immediately.

By 2050, technologies will appear allowing radical life extension. By 2070 – technologies allowing to practically stop aging. By 2100 – possibly technologies for consciousness transfer. Death will turn from an absolute inevitability into an option that can be declined. If there is money. If there is access. If you live in the right country.

For 10–15% of the population, death will become a choice in 2050–2070. For the rest, it will remain an inevitability for another 50–100 years. Perhaps by 2150, technologies will become cheap enough to be accessible to the majority. Or states will introduce regulation limiting access altogether. Or humanity will find a way to scale production and infrastructure so that immortality becomes mass-market. All this is possible.

But between «possible» and «real» lies a gap made of economics, politics, ethics, and technological limitations. And until this gap is bridged, immortality will be a privilege, and death – a statistic.

The data says: we are moving toward a world where life expectancy will become a variable dependent on income. Where aging turns into a curable disease, but the cure will cost like an apartment in central Vienna. Where the choice between life and death becomes real, but not accessible to all.

This is neither good nor bad. It is simply a trend that has already been launched. Numbers don't lie. Technologies don't stop. The economy works according to its own laws. And if we extrapolate all this 30–50 years forward, the picture looks exactly like this.

Will death be a choice? Yes. But the price of that choice will be higher than you think.