Yes, but so what? I mean, this is a statement of fact, and I don't think that anybody much would dispute it. But what are we to infer from it? What does this statement tell us to do?
There are reasons to buy a pipe organ and reasons to buy a digital organ. Chiefly, the constraints of space and budget cost together with the purpose for which you are buying the instrument.
Should I replace my 3 manual digital affair from my suburban living room on the grounds that if I do, the occupants of the house in 100 years time will have something nice to play?
My so-called toaster has given me what most instrumental musicians would take for granted: unlimited and instant access to practice facilities. You'd have to be insane to set out to learn the organ if you depend for your practice on the local church.
I don't think anybody here disputes that pipes sound better and that making music come out of good pipes, controlled from a good mechanical action is that slice of heaven on earth that is the just reward for surviving the purgatory of left-hand-and-pedal exercises. (And a big personal thank you to Musing Muso, who answered my cri de coeur of the other week and gave me 4 hours last week on just such an instrument; one that's gone right to the top of my all time favourites).
But to return (after a bit of a ramble) to my actual point: stating the obvious about life expectancies doesn't by itself tell us anything about what to buy in any particular situation.