Well first of all I don’t think a world without suffering would be better, so I disagree with your metric for a better world. Some suffering is necessary, adversity is needed for growth, catharsis etc. Rather I think its just certain kinds of suffering that leads to a bad/worse world.
Your #1 cause of suffering, competition of life, is very broad so I couldnt agree with it. Some things about competing life could or should be eliminated and others cannot or shouldnt be prevented. I think you’d have to break this down a bit more for it to be a good metric.
#2 - i do not understand how this causes suffering except in the sense that someone suffers because things are not the way they want them to be. The truth hurting is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated.
#3 - same thing as 2. This is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated. If the truth is we do not somehow live on through the sorcery of a soul or somesuch, then so be it. Not being comfortable with the truth is not the kind of suffering we could or should get rid of. Depending on how this “afterlife” works, it could very well lead to more suffering and of a kind much, much worse than the mere suffering of the truth about life.

So before we get to your solutions I think that you have problems in your premises. Those are my thoughts.

Well first of all I don’t think a world without suffering would be better, so I disagree with your metric for a better world. Some suffering is necessary, adversity is needed for growth, catharsis etc. Rather I think its just certain kinds of suffering that leads to a bad/worse world. — DingoJones

Suffering is what makes people kill themselves, is the reason why people seek medical treatment to relieve it, is the reason why antinatalists want people to stop procreating, do you not seek to relieve your suffering when you suffer?

Note that suffering is not pain, one can experience pain without suffering and suffering without pain. Suffering is the experience that by definition we want to avoid or overcome, while some people do enjoy pain and some do not mind pain to some extent.

There can also be adversity without suffering. When people are eager to push their physical limits they are willing to go through some level of pain, it's not an experience they want to avoid and they feel better afterwards, so I wouldn't call that suffering. There can be competition without suffering, when participants compete to improve themselves and elevate one another rather than to prove that they are "better than" and that the others are inferior.

You might say there would be no catharsis without suffering as catharsis is some sort of release from suffering, but then precisely one overcomes suffering and that's why it makes one feel better. It's not the suffering that made one feel better, it's overcoming it, without the suffering one wouldn't have had to feel better in the first place because one would have already felt good.

Suffering is personal, not all people suffer from the same situation, but we know what it's like, it's an experience that we want to stop and we don't know how to make it stop. I don't see how overcoming that wouldn't make people feel better, and based on the above you still have to show that some suffering is necessary.

Your #1 cause of suffering, competition of life, is very broad so I couldnt agree with it. Some things about competing life could or should be eliminated and others cannot or shouldnt be prevented. I think you’d have to break this down a bit more for it to be a good metric. — DingoJones

If other animals were chasing you and hurting you to kill and eat you, I think you would have some idea of how that leads to immense suffering. In modern society we are disconnected from that because we don't have predators and most of us don't do the killing ourselves, but if you go to a slaughterhouse or a factory farm and watch what happens you would see the suffering, or just watch some videos of it. When you observe animals in the wild you can see that often they have a family, and that they too suffer from the loss of a loved one. They aren't things that don't feel anything. If one believes that animals don't suffer then why believe that humans suffer? They have a lot in common with us.

#2 - i do not understand how this causes suffering except in the sense that someone suffers because things are not the way they want them to be. The truth hurting is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated. — DingoJones

Well how would you know it's the truth? If everything was determined by these laws, then every thing you think and you want would be determined by these laws as well, you couldn't choose what you want, you would have the illusion of choice, you couldn't change anything, everything that happens would be dictated by these laws. Yet we don't feel like we aren't in control of our body, sometimes we aren't in control and we see the difference. As you say that idea hurts, it leaves people depressed, lost, yet as I explained there can be ways to show that this idea isn't truth.

#3 - same thing as 2. This is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated. If the truth is we do not somehow live on through the sorcery of a soul or somesuch, then so be it. Not being comfortable with the truth is not the kind of suffering we could or should get rid of. Depending on how this “afterlife” works, it could very well lead to more suffering and of a kind much, much worse than the mere suffering of the truth about life. — DingoJones

Again is that really the truth? It could be, but as I explained if we can show that a living being doesn't reduce to laws, that there is something more, then why believe that the 'more' ends when the body dies? The idea of existence ending with death of the body leads to enormous existential suffering, that makes people depressed and/or makes them kill themselves. I think people who don't suffer from it are those who try not to really think about it.

I'm not saying we should believe what makes us feel good even if it's false, but I'm saying we have plenty of beliefs that aren't necessarily true and that cause enormous suffering, so if we can show that they are false then we would both get better and get closer to truth. It might also be that when one has found truth there is no suffering anymore.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Ok, it seems like you have a different, more specific idea of what suffering is.
You said suffering is what makes people want to kill themselves. That seems pretty stringent. As I said, there are certain kinds of suffering, you are just describing the most extreme kind. Would “extreme suffering” or something like that perhaps be more accurate for your purposes?
Thats under the purview of #1.
Your response to my points about 2 and 3 are about the truth of determinism, basically.
It could be that the body doesnt reduce to physical laws or something, that there is some unknown or supernatural part of living things but just because its possible doesnt mean we can build anything on that idea. I have no good reasons to think that is the case, so Im not going to accept it as a premiss for anything else I believe.

What about viruses and pests who's main concern is to leach off of humans for survival/ kill us out?

What about viruses and pests who's main concern is to leach off of humans for survival/ kill us out? — Lif3r

It isn't clear whether viruses count as life. If their behavior is solely determined by laws then they do not try to kill us any more than an asteroid tries to kill us.

From some point of view humans could be seen as a pest spreading on the planet and destroying other forms of life. A few humans do try to live in harmony with their environment, but if you look at the whole that's not what it looks like. So are other life forms a pest, are we a pest, or neither? Life wants to live, and life does what it believes it needs to do to survive. If we are so much more evolved and advanced than a pest then why are we destroying the planet? I believe it should be possible to live in harmony with so-called pests, if both them and us realize that we don't need to destroy one another to live. Plenty of insects live in harmony with their environment, maybe they aren't as dumb as we think they are. And again, if we can manage to synthesize food from non-living matter that will change a lot of things.

Ok, it seems like you have a different, more specific idea of what suffering is.
You said suffering is what makes people want to kill themselves. That seems pretty stringent. As I said, there are certain kinds of suffering, you are just describing the most extreme kind. Would “extreme suffering” or something like that perhaps be more accurate for your purposes? — DingoJones

You can call it extreme suffering if you like, but it can take years or decades before someone decides to kill themselves because of accumulated suffering, so I'm not only referring to the kind of extreme suffering that makes people kill themselves right away. Regardless of how we call it, I still believe that if we could prevent or overcome the sources of suffering I mentioned then the world would be a much better place.

Your response to my points about 2 and 3 are about the truth of determinism, basically.
It could be that the body doesnt reduce to physical laws or something, that there is some unknown or supernatural part of living things but just because its possible doesnt mean we can build anything on that idea. I have no good reasons to think that is the case, so Im not going to accept it as a premiss for anything else I believe. — DingoJones

Indeed for now we don't have to believe it is true (that there is something about life that doesn't reduce to physical laws), but if it is true then that would change a lot of things and would overcome a lot of suffering. And then might as well try to find out whether it is true, rather than simply take the pessimistic view as truth and not look further than that. As I mentioned our physical laws are tested accurately in situations where living beings are not involved, for instance when we look at the motion of celestial bodies or at the motion of tiny particles/objects, and most people don't seem to realize that. We simply assume that we are entirely made of these tiny particles, but we have no evidence of that, simply assuming it doesn't make it evidence. Whereas for instance we have first-hand evidence of being in control of our body, and no real evidence of that being an illusion.