My number one priority with resistance training is minimising the risk of chronic damage to my body over decades of lifting weights. I have found lots of conflicting information on this, and a lack of good empirical studies on the main compound lifts. I'm not interested in going very heavy with these movements: 1.5x bodyweight with squats and deadlifts and 1x bodyweight with bench press.
On the one hand there are many who believe that doing back squats, conventional deadlifts, and bench presses, in this weight range, poses no real long term risk as long as you pay enough attention to your form. On the other hand, there are some who say that the movements will damage your joints/tissues/cartilage over time and it's better to substitute them for other movements, even though they may be less efficient.
For example with squats: the conventional wisdom is that if you keep your spine erect and upright then the force applied is compressive, not shear, which your disks are good at dealing with. On the other hand, links like this and this argue that back squats lead to forward lean/hyperextension all too often, which significantly increases the chance of back issues if repeated over a period of decades during one's lifetime.
The second link makes similar points for many major lifts and advocates substitute exercises that would be less efficient but safer. For example, squats could be swapped for bulgarian split squats and single leg presses; deadlifts for dumbbell single leg reverse deadlifts.
I guess my actual question comes in two parts:
1) If I swapped the conventional barbell lifts for the variants I mentioned above, would that come with a lower risk of long term damage to my body? (Back, joints, etc).
2) If I swapped for these exercises, would it still be possible to build a moderate level of strength and muscle [enough that I could still squat and deadlift 1.5x my bodyweight if I wanted to], even if it's over a longer period of time?