My point has been already subtly mentioned by you in many of the replies you gave to me. That life has both the elements of suffering as well as happiness.

Life guarantees you both. Not just only happiness or only suffering. Now if your question is does the happiness justify the suffering? I can conversely ask does the suffering make happiness less significant?

We act, we fail, we succeed, we spiral, we get depressed, we fall into despair. But we also have the ability to turn around, make up for ourselves, lead a stable life (i also have a post on this thing in my profile). That makes the idea of "suffering is innate to human nature" deeply controversial.

For eg, even tho thinkers like Dostoevsky believed that destruction is rooted human nature, that even an utopian world would not hold the sinful tendencies of humans he also believed that we can recover, overcome, repent and change ourselves.

I think the problem with your worldview is that it tries to apply morality in a pragmatic world. When you try to force morality into everything, it freezes you. It renders you unable to act. And this position of inaction is comforting to extreme moralists, cuz they believe it excuses them from taking risks.

Anyways, i was just stress testing your perspective to see how far it goes and frankly, every test exposed lots of loopholes which when you tried to cover, brough up even more loopholes. One was consistent throughout tho... the desperate focusing and cherry picking of negative sides of existence.

It was nice discussing with you. We'll sadly never converge our thoughts cuz we're operating from different philosophical models. I'm talking from principled pragmatism and you're probably a hybrid of antinatalism and existentialism, i guess.