Could Organ Transplants Really Make Putin Immortal?

Immortality through transplants is unlikely, but slowing aging could improve health. The bigger issue is whether longer lives would harm social progress.

What do world leaders discuss when they believe no one is paying attention? Recently, the topic was nothing less than immortality.

At a military parade in Beijing, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chinese president Xi Jinping were overheard considering whether biotechnology might make eternal life possible. Putin, in particular, speculated that repeated organ transplants could keep a person youthful indefinitely.

This claim raises many questions. While the concept of extending lifespan is not as far-fetched—or as troubling—as it might sound, there are serious issues to consider.

Could transplants allow us to live forever?

The idea that ongoing organ transplants could provide immortality is almost certainly incorrect.

A central problem is the source of the organs. Transplantable organs are already in short supply, and allocating them to prolong the life of an aging leader would deny others the chance at survival.

Putin may instead have been imagining lab-grown organs developed from stem cells, which would avoid this ethical problem. Yet even here, science is far from meeting such expectations. Researchers can currently grow small “organoids” that replicate certain aspects of tissue, but producing fully functional, transplant-ready organs remains far beyond what technology can achieve.

Even if limitless replacement organs were somehow available, aging would still weaken the body’s ability to heal and adapt. Recovering from repeated transplant surgeries—each a major procedure—would become increasingly difficult.

The brain poses an even more insurmountable challenge. Organs such as kidneys or livers can be replaced without affecting personal identity, but the brain cannot. A brain transplant would not preserve the individual; it would mean that someone else entirely occupies the body.

Other approaches

There may be better routes to increasing longevity.

Scientists have prolonged the lives of laboratory animals such as monkeys, mice, and fruit flies through drugs, genetic alterations, dietary changes, and cellular reprogramming (which involves reverting some of the body’s cells to a “younger,” more primitive state).

It’s always challenging to translate animal studies to humans. But nothing suggests human aging is uniquely beyond modification.

In 2024, Putin launched a national project to combat aging. Could Russia deliver the necessary scientific breakthrough?

Perhaps, though many experts are doubtful, given Russia’s fragile research infrastructure.

But Putin is not alone in funding longevity research. Breakthroughs might come from elsewhere – including, potentially, from major investments in anti-aging biotechnologies from billionaires in the West.

Anti-aging research could bring benefits

Whether they are authoritarian presidents or Silicon Valley billionaires, it’s easy to sneer at wealthy elites’ preoccupation with lifespan extension.

Death is the great leveler; it comes for us all. We understandably distrust those who want to rise above it.

But we need to disentangle motives and ethics. It is possible to pursue worthwhile projects for bad reasons.

For example, if I donate to an anti-malaria charity merely to impress my Tinder date, you might roll your eyes at my motivations. But the donation itself still achieves good.

The same applies to lifespan extension.

Anti-aging research could have many benefits. Because aging raises the risk of almost every major disease, slowing it could make people healthier at every age.

If we value preventing diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and dementia, we should welcome research into slowing aging (which could in turn help to reduce these problems).

Is seeking longer lives ethical?

Putin and Xi might seem less concerned with improving population health than with postponing their own deaths. But is it wrong to want longevity?

Many of us dread death – this is normal and understandable. Death deprives us of all the goods of life, while the prospect of dying can be frightening.

Nor is it suspect to want more than a “natural” lifespan. Since 1900, life expectancy in wealthy countries has risen by more than 30 years. We should welcome further improvements.

The most serious ethical concern about lifespan extension is that it will result in social stagnation.

Our views become increasingly rigid as we age. Young minds often bring new ideas.

If Taylor Swift is still topping the charts in 2089, many other musicians will miss out. And we will miss out on enjoying the evolution of pop music.

Music is one thing; morals are another. The 21st century is raising many new challenges – such as climate change and AI developments – that may benefit from fresh moral perspectives, and from the turnover of political power.

A Russia still ruled by Putin in 2150 will strike many as the starkest version of this worry. Fortunately, we need not be too concerned about a 200-year-old Putin. He is no longer young, and significant lifespan extension is probably decades away.

Still, the prospect of ageless autocrats should give us pause. We should welcome technologies that slow aging and help us stay healthier for longer, while remembering that even good technologies can have bad effects.

If we succeed in dramatically extending lifespans, we will need to work out how to prevent our societies from becoming as static as some of the elites who lead them.

Written by Julian Koplin, Lecturer in Bioethics, Monash University & Honorary fellow, Melbourne Law School, Monash University.

Adapted from an article originally published in The Conversation.

Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.