Age-slowing drugs are fast moving from theory to laboratory progress, and private firms are positioning themselves to control access. Phil Cleary examines how commercial ownership of lifespan could reshape society, concentrate power, and deepen existing pressures on resources, governance and equality

A few years ago, I wrote a novel, Elixir, which imagines a world where humans could live to 200, 250, or even beyond. OK, it’s a thriller with bad guys trying to wrestle control of the life-extending drug. However, I was waving a massive red flag to highlight what might happen if scientists succeed in creating a drug (the ‘Elixir’) that slows the aging process.

And this is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Recent research papers from scientists at Imperial College, London, have established that they have extended the lives of lab mice by 25% while improving their overall health.  The San Francisco-based biotech company Loyal is developing drugs to extend the lifespan of large dogs, such as Great Danes and Saint Bernards, which typically live 7–10 years, while smaller breeds can live 14–16 years. Loyal aims to bridge this gap, potentially giving owners more time with their pets. Encouraged by these early technology advances, billions of dollars are now being invested in research to find science’s ‘Holy Grail’, the Elixir of Life.

But as we stand on the brink of this brave new world, we must ask: Are we prepared for the consequences if they succeed? The potential benefits are staggering. Longer, healthier lives could mean more time for personal growth, deeper relationships, and greater contributions to society. Economically, a “longevity economy” could emerge, with older individuals remaining productive and reducing the burden of age-related diseases on healthcare systems.

Yet, for all its promise, the success of longevity research brings profound risks—risks we are only beginning to grapple with.

Chief among these risks is the strain on Earth’s already overburdened resources. The global population, currently at 8 billion, is projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. Now, imagine adding decades to the average lifespan. A 2021 study in The Lancet Healthy Longevity warns that extended lifespans could exacerbate population growth, leading to unprecedented demand for food, water, energy, and housing. If billions more people live 20, 30, or even 50 years longer, the pressure on our planet could be catastrophic.

Consider this: A person living an extra 30 years could consume an additional 1.5 million gallons of water, generate 30 tons of waste, and contribute to increased carbon emissions. Multiply that by billions, and the environmental toll becomes staggering. Our planet is already grappling with climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. Longer lives without corresponding advances in sustainable living could push these crises to a breaking point.

I was recently in New York to be interviewed by the renowned tech journalist, Kara Swisher of CNN. She was aware that billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel increasingly influence the broader longevity field and wanted my views to bring some balance. I told her that, in my opinion, their investments in companies like Altos Labs and Unity Biotechnology signal a growing commercial interest in life extension, but that the reality is that life-extending technologies could become a luxury reserved for the wealthy.

Picture a future where a select few can afford to live decades longer, while the rest of humanity is left behind. This isn’t just inequality—it’s a fundamental reshaping of society. The wealthy could amass even more power and influence, widening the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots.” If a commercial entity controls access to these technologies, it could wield unprecedented power. As a commercially available product, the owner of the drug would have the right to “switch off” access to life-extending treatments, effectively sentencing individuals they’ve taken a dislike to  – say, a politician, another CEO, a neighbour, even —to a shortened life. Or worse, the owner decides to deny access to their target’s children, thereby condemning them to die first. Just the threat of cancelling access to the ‘Elixir’ would have some of the most powerful individuals in the world, political leaders and corporate titans, bending their knees in submission. 

In my novel, the CEO distributes production of the drug globally to prevent forcible closure by Western governments. What else could a Government do to keep control of its population growth? Ban the use of the Elixir?  Well, that worked well during the Prohibition, didn’t it? And how are Western governments doing in suppressing the use of drugs like Fentanyl?

The ripple effects of extended lifespans would touch every corner of society. Retirement systems, already strained, would face collapse if people lived and worked decades longer. Healthcare systems would need to adapt to an aging population with new needs. The job market could become a battleground, with younger generations struggling to find opportunities as older workers remain in the workforce. Would the young, unable to find jobs to fund their access to Elixir and extended life, grow to resent the ‘forever young’ older generation to the point of violence?

The psychological and social impacts are unknown. Human societies have evolved with a certain rhythm of life and death. What happens when that rhythm is disrupted? Would longer lives lead to greater wisdom and stability, or would they foster stagnation and resistance to change? These are questions we must confront now, before the technology outpaces our ability to manage its consequences.

The UN’s projection of the world’s population: circa 8.1 billion in 2025 will rise to 9.7 billion by 2050.

However, Sam Altman has invested $180m into Retro Biosciences with the relatively modest aim of extending healthy lifespan by 10 years, focusing on cellular drivers of aging. Should they succeed, modelling suggests the population could reach 10–11 billion by 2050 (roughly 1–1.5 billion more than the baseline); however, if fertility were also extended, it could add 5–10% to global births per generation.

The social & economic impacts are chilling and are yet to be seriously considered.

•           Healthcare & pensions: Systems would need recalibration

•           Family structures: More late‑life parenting, more multi‑generation households.

•           Resources: Food, water, housing, and climate pressures would intensify.

•           Two-Tier society: Retirement delayed, so no vacancies for youngsters.

This is not Luddite scaremongering – we simply cannot ignore the risks. The potential for overpopulation, environmental collapse, and ethical nightmares is real. As high-net-worth individuals pour billions into this field, we must ensure that the benefits of extended life are shared equitably, not hoarded by the few.

We need proactive policies—on sustainability, resource management, and ethical governance—to prepare for a world where life extension is possible. This isn’t just about technology; it’s about the kind of future we want to build. Do we want a world where life is longer but unsustainable? Where only the rich can afford to outlive the rest? Or do we want a future where extended life is a shared human achievement, managed with wisdom and foresight?

Life‑extension drugs are being pursued with the same breathless optimism that once surrounded social media, yet with equally scant oversight. We have already seen how unregulated platforms, hailed as tools of connection, became engines of radicalisation, polarisation, and simmering anger. To repeat that mistake with biotechnology would be reckless in the extreme.

In a world currently worried about world war and the potential for nuclear annihilation, finding the time and inclination to think about these questions is understandably difficult. But longevity research is advancing rapidly; it’s a runaway train fuelled by billionaires, with unashamed self-interest as their driver. The decisions we make today will shape the world of tomorrow. Without rigorous scrutiny, the promise of longer lives risks fermenting new inequities and unforeseen harms — an uncontrolled experiment on humanity itself.

Phil Cleary is one of the UK’s leading technology entrepreneurs and a former covert operations specialist in British policing. He is the co-founder and former CEO of The SmartWater Group (now DeterTech), the world’s foremost forensic marking company, whose technologies are used by millions across more than 20 countries. A Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a recognised expert in security and modern warfare, Phil also holds a Master’s in Military History. His debut political thriller, Elixir, has received critical acclaim for reimagining humanity’s quest for immortality as a global threat greater than AI.

READ MORE: ‘Elixir by Phil Cleary‘. Elixir by author and celebrated entrepreneur Phil Cleary is a blistering thriller that reframes mankind’s dream for immortality into a global threat greater than AI. Read The European’s review.

Do you have news to share or expertise to contribute? The European welcomes insights from business leaders and sector specialists. Get in touch with our editorial team to find out more.

_{Main image: Polina Tankilevitch/Pexels}