What are the risks of Indefinite Life Spans?

  There are three principle negative reasons given that people use to argue against having indefinite life spans, ignoring the question of it being technically feasible.

  The first one I most often hear is that it is unnatural or ungodly to try and live forever. And while I respect that argument, I disagree with it. It is no more ungodly to try to live as long as one can and succeed than it is to try to live as long as one can and FAIL. We take various kinds of medicine, medical treatment, exercise, diet and take vitamins to have healthy lives but also to live longer. Since 1930 we have added 21 years to the average life span, a better than 4 to 1 ratio.  If you would get a vaccination voluntarily then you have no moral basis for rejecting treatment that might allow you to live a healthy and indefinitely long life.

  The second objection inevitably raised is that an indefinite life span would cause more over population of the Earth, infinite populations. But actually computer modeling based on current population reproductive behavior shows that this is not true. People naturally limit themselves though media coverage might make it seem the opposite to be true.

"Psychological consequences aside, Leonid Gavrilov, in "Demographic consequences of defeating aging," (presented at the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence Conference, Queens' College, Cambridge, England, September, 2009) asks: "Is it possible to have a sustainable population dynamics in a future hypothetical non-aging society?"

In computer simulations, Gavrilov concluded that "population changes are surprisingly slow in their response to a dramatic life extension.... For example, we applied the cohort-component method of population projections to 2005 Swedish population for several scenarios of life extension and a fertility schedule observed in 2005. Even for very long 50-year projection horizon, with the most radical life extension scenario (assuming no aging at all after age 50), the total population increases by 35 percent only (from 9.1 to 13.3 million)."

Paradoxically, the population might even decline "if some members of the society reject to use new anti-aging technologies for some religious or any other reasons (inconvenience, non-compliance, fear of side effects, costs, etc.)."
Immortal parents, if they had only one child per couple, would double the population over time. The population would not grow infinitely."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-old-age/200912/would-immortality-become-overpopulation-nightmare

  The third question then is of whether people would be willing to take risks with their health and lives if they knew they had the possibility of living for a thousand years or more. They quote Asimov's 'Solaria' and assert that humanity would become a race of cowards and risk aversion obsessed bean counters. I doubt that due to experience. The longer I have lived the more I have become convinced that there is something on the other side, and I have become more willing to take risks as a result. I do not feel that this is the only life we will ever have and to grasp on to it with both white knuckled hands.  Long life ennobles people, and generally, makes them wiser and more careful.

I think indefinite life spans will be yet one more blessing of coming technological revolution, and it will be a good thing. Because, wouldn't that make people more inclined to live healthier lives? To not take self-destructive risks and to try and look at life with a longer range of vision?

I would think so. Indefinite life spans are a good fit to humanity I think.