So, is the transhumanist dream just that - a pipe dream - or is it a rational, ethical, and viable solution to humanity's problems?

The most notable of which would be the problem of suffering, as all the other problems are contingent on whether or not they cause us to suffer.

First off I would like to define what suffering is. Suffering is not necessarily getting pricked by a needle. Suffering is any kind of negative feeling that a person cannot derive any meaning from or is quite difficult to cope with.

We can identify what counts as suffering if we ask ourselves "would it be worth experiencing this".

Getting pricked by a needle does not count as suffering, because we would be able to deal with this pain and most of us would realize that it is quite insignificant in the bigger picture of things. If getting pricked by a needle led to us experiencing great pleasure and meaning, most (if not all) of us would accept this. Therefore, something can be felt as discomfort, but is not suffering because we are able to cope with it.

Now, "cope" is something that tends to make people (or maybe it's just me) imagine someone barely getting by. But "cope" does not reference one single feeling. It refers to any kind of enduring, big or small. It is perfectly acceptable to say I coped with being pricked by a needle and also say that I coped with breaking five ribs, but at the same time understand that just because I coped with both of them doesn't mean I'm okay with experiencing both. I would rather not cope with breaking five ribs. But nevertheless I can.

If we could manufacture technology that would replace the crude nociceptors in our bodies with something like an alarm, a gentle reminder that something is harmful, but not make us feel discomfort, this would be the most important technological and ethical achievement in the history of mankind.

And if replacing nociceptors is impossible or impractical, then we can surely make adjustments to our current lives using technology to help minimize suffering. We can develop flame-retardant paint, for example, to combat house fires. We can develop AIs to drive our cars for us so we don't crash and die. We can already monitor our lifestyles to help decrease the chances of later-in-life suffering, and the future for that seems fairly bright. New medicines conquer diseases. New technology heals wounds in months rather than years.

Would it be wrong to think that technology, given time and effort, would be able to eliminate most, if not all, physical suffering?

But suffering can manifest in other ways; psychologically. Psychological pain is usually quite less sharp as physical pain that is caused by nociceptors. But nonetheless, it hurts.

Embarrassment after being rejected is psychological pain, but not necessarily suffering. Everyone goes through rejections and breakups, and it would be a bit decadent and absurd that life would not be worth living simply because of a few breakups.

However, psychological pain can manifest as suffering. A person who is suicidal over their breakup is not experiencing the same thing as a person who broke up and is merely sad. The former is suicidal! They don't see any way of getting out of it. That is psychological suffering.

So, how can psychological suffering be solved?

Interestingly enough, much of our psychological pain can be solved today, and has been for millennium. Plenty of philosophies, from the Stoics to the Buddhist to the Taoists to the Cynics, Epicureans, and modern day Existentialists, preach different ways of overcoming these problems. It seems as if it is up to the person themselves to decide which path suits them best, or forge their own.

Psychological problems, such as dementia, schizophrenia, anxiety, etc can be helped by the use of drugs and therapy. That is not to say they are solved, but they can be helped. And sometimes helping is enough to make something not suffering.

If these two solutions do not work (philosophy and modern medicine), then what can be solve it? An experience machine? Ascetic contemplation? Suicide?

Or is this entire approach wrong-headed? Like I said above, suffering is any type of negative experience that cannot be dealt with easily or is impossible to derive meaning from.

However, when one achieves eudaimonia, suffering tends to cease. Eudaimonia makes the "itch of life" nonexistent for as long as the experience lasts. Everything becomes worth it, the subject feels energized and motivated, embracing life. Should technology be focused on getting everyone to achieve eudaimonia? We need to understand how eudaimonia is achieved, and I believe one step is to somehow cease suffering. So it is not that eudaimonia causes suffering to cease, it is that suffering ceases, which can lead to eudaimonia.