But in fact almost all s-risks occur precisely because of civilizations that hate suffering

It seems just as plausible to me that suffering-hating civilizations reduce the overall amount of suffering in the multiverse, so I think I'd wait until it becomes clear which is the case, even if I was concerned exclusively with suffering. But I haven't thought about this question much, since I haven't had a reason to assume an exclusive concern with suffering, until you started asking me to.

To be clear, even if we have modest amounts of moral uncertainty I think it could easily justify a "wait and see" style approach. But if we were committed to a suffering-focused view then I don't think your argument works.

Earlier in this thread I'd been speaking from the perspective of my own moral uncertainty, not from a purely suffering-focused view, since we were discussing the linked article, and Kaj had written:

The article isn't specifically negative utilitarian, though - even classical utilitarians would agree that having astronomical amounts of suffering is a bad thing. Nor do you have to be a utilitarian in the first place to think it would be bad: as the article itself notes, pretty much all major value systems probably agree on s-risks being a major Bad Thing

What's your reason for considering a purely suffering-focused view? Intellectual curiosity? Being nice to or cooperating with people like Brian Tomasik by helping to analyze one of their problems?