I also wanted to add that I disagree with Dr. Deutsch's claim that natural suffering should be considered as a relevant factor in deciding what actions are morally justifiable. There is an important fallacy in this line of argument.
One conclusion of such argument is that it would perhaps be more justified to kill an animal painlessly to guard it against suffering by natural causes like disease-*assuming* of course that they are capable of suffering. (which we simply do not know either way in case of higher mammals at least)
There is nothing in the above argument that wouldn't apply to humans as well, even en mass and without their consent. Partly for this reason, it seems to me, The World concludes that suffering is not the right criterion. They propose the capacity to produce ideas and the uniqueness of the individual and its potential instead as the reason replacing the inducement of suffering.
I don't think this is the right conclusion.
Let's follow this argument. Whatever reason is given why idea creation is worthy of protection against extermination, the fact that we the idea creators are ourselves the results partly also of the actions of species in the past with complex nervous systems and brains could be seen as a proof that their use of their brain- and not just the information encoded in their genes- makes them worthy of the same protection. (after all that was the point of evolving brains in the first place. Genes alone couldn't handle the complexity of the environment efficiently enough). Even lower forms of life who are basically nothing but their genetic code, aren't they themselves each an embodiment of a separate idea?
Which leads to this idea: Natural selection works by killing as many such "ideas" as it can so only the fittest can survive. Why can't the same be applied to idea creators. Shouldn't we consider actually attempting to exterminate deliberately as many of them as we can to ensure only the fittest idea creators populate the future and so ensure substantially better quality ideas to be created by them?
These assumptions also could lead to some conclusions you wouldn't like.

The similarity of the last quote is of course deliberate because the two lines of reasoning are very similar and both entail the same wrong idea. Mixing the immoral acts of nature with moral acts based on choice of self-conscious beings like us who can form sophisticated enough ideas including the concept of morality itself.

Ironically precisely because it is reasonable to argue that any being that is capable of suffering must be complex enough, to have a primitive kind of "mind", to be a self contained entity, "mentally" segregated from the rest of the world at least to some degree, that it is vulnerable to natural suffering. Eliminating that self-sustained system to end the suffering would place the actions done *against* it outside the domain of morality. It is not dissimilar to the case of a changing system. It must remain partly unchanged to be defined as a system in that context. So killing an entity to prevent it from natural suffering is not an option viable to moral questions and by the same token natural suffering is a necessary part of any being that can be the subject of moral study. Therefore the natural world is amoral and, so far as we can say, only human actions are prone to judgement by moral standards (but higher forms of animals could themselves be the subject of moral treatment without *their actions* being prone to moral judgement. In the latter sense they are part of the natural world.)

Interestingly ascribing moral value to natural acts is precisely what comprises the very essence of evil in the cultural and religious traditions handed in to us from antiquity. Satan for instance literally means the accuser, that is, the one who accuses the structure of reality as whole - God in symbolic religious jargon of you want- as being the ultimate evil and the only real cause of injustice. This leads almost immediately to concluding that even the worst kinds of deliberate criminal action is not only justifiable since it ends this suffering inherent in creation but actually has the highest moral value.

I think that is also what is lurking underneath all oppositions to free society and market economy who are adapted to the amoral natural state of "unfairness" by identifying it as moral vice. As it has been shown over and over again in history they end up justifying much more horrible deliberate crimes at the end...and for good reasons.