No. The mind uploading would only be relevant to those having the procedure, not death in general. There's also a great deal about the impacts of the non-mental parts of the body on the mind which we don't know yet, although could in principle be simulated - discussed here: Can minds be uploaded in computers? An upload would likely be more like a high resolution digital image of your mind, that could be run with varied levels of fidelity to the human bodily experience. But the qualia of it would almost inevitably, at least in the nearer term, be very different.
Brain emulation is pure science fiction for now. Relatively small steps have been made in understanding cognitive architecture, like Convolutional Neural Networks in image processing. The Human Brain Project is an interesting landmark in scoping out how big the problem is. And brain-computer interfaces, like being developed by Neuralink, is an interesting area too, though it's proved challenging.
How close are we to mind uploading? Impossible to say. But the issue of computer vision is informative, it turned out to be a much harder challenge than early computer pioneers expected, indeed it's only really been possible in the last decade. The use-case of autonomous vehicles is directing massive funding towards improvements, but that's also making clear how difficult some of the remaining challenges are that we group under 'common sense' about how humans understand their environments visually. But, on the plus side, advances compound. Insights in one area support others, new hardware and software architecture can be rapidly shared and copied. And it's possible, likely even, that we are close to making systems that learn autonomously with AI to augment themselves, which could have unpredictable consequences.
Personally, I would say adding length to telomeres and stimulating biological rejuvenation, is likely to happen sooner than brain uploading. If we can't manipulate the biology of our bodies to that degree, I'd say really getting to grips with the complexity of our brains is a way off.
I like the Mahayana Buddhist idea of Alayavijnana, or Eighth Consciousness, which bears close comparison to the idea of the Memesphere, the conceptual 'space' in which ideas propagate. People we are parted from live on in our minds, and in the consequences of the actions. This Buddhist idea goes a little further, saying the part of us which does not include memories, can get 'picked up' by some future causes and conditions. This is a kind of rebirth I can believe, that people come around again in a way. We can work to make the world better for them when they come back.
A great deal of human culture is about the need, focused by experiencing deaths of others or facing our own deaths, to connect to transpersonal and transcendental themes, to a way to have lived that will have had consequences after we are gone. This answer discusses the history of this aspect of human behaviour, and how in a very real way it has defined human community: What are some philosophical works that explore constructing meaning in life from an agnostic or atheist view?
I would recommend you enquire more deeply into what the self is. If your mind was uploaded, and that constituted a set of memories, and that is 'you', what happens to you now when you forget something, do you become someone else? Or is'you' a set of temperaments, inclinations, the self that would still be there even if you got alzheimers or dementia? Are you still 'you' when unconscious or under anaesthesia, or just the potential to carry on being you? The change from being alive to brain dead can involve very small changes. If you can upload yourself what impact does it have that their could be multiple copies of you, or maybe rengineered versions suited more for particular tasks?
In Buddhist thought they have Three Marks of Existence, qualities we often wish to but can't escape. One of them is impermanence, that everything that is coming to be will pass away. The stars will only burn so long, no uploading and technology to go with it can last forever, and it's very unlikely that people with the closest possibility to that would choose it. Rather than focusing on death as a nemesis, as intrinsically bad, we should learn to talk about what a good death is. We should think how to be ready for something that is inevitable, but that we can meet on our own terms. Discussed more deeply here: Is Death a Feature or a Bug?
