You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
If suffering of one entity leads to the survival or genetic reproduction of a more fit entity, suffering of a single species member may benefit that species as a whole. A more correct phrasing might be 'needless suffering', assuming you can quantitatively and qualitatively define 'needless'.
This is already included in "alleviation of suffering". If one suffering allows less suffering globally, then it is "alleviation of suffering" in the end.
But shouldn't we then deliberately increase individual suffering in the near term in order to increase evolutionary pressure and ultimately reduce suffering in the long term?
I don't understand ^^ To be analysed.
in the context of the modern/industrialized era, the suffering experienced by individual human beings, or individual communities thereof, does not 'play out' on a time-frame that is compatible with the notion of evolutionary processes.