What if there isn't even enough fun for normal human beings to live up until an age of 150 and still have fun?

Really?

my intention is to inquire about the perception that it is our moral responsibility to minimize suffering

It's okay for us to cause more entities to exist, for a greater sum of suffering, provided that it's one of the better possible outcomes.

While intervening in a way that (with or without) consent inflicts a certain amount of additional net suffering on others (such as causing them to be created) is to be avoided all other things equal, it's justifiable if the net fun is increased by some multiple of the suffering (the requisite multiple depends on consent, on who gets the fun, i.e. if you're gaining fun by torturing another, the multiple may have to be huge).

I agree that we should consider the possibility of suffering. Suicide (by radical modification into something that is not suffering, or actual termination) seems like an easy solution.

I imagine some "artist" eventually creating a creature that is sentient, feels great pain, and eloquently insists that it does not want to be changed, or ended. Sick bastard. Or perhaps it would merely be programmed to elaborately fake great pain, to others' discomfort, while secretly reveling in it. I imagine technology would be able to tell the difference.