If you can do so in a way that does not lead to stagnation, I am willing to hear you out. The only people I'm aware of who have transcended suffering are Buddhist monks, and... well, they are exactly models of trans-human progress. They mostly just sit quietly and keep to themselves.
I'm not talking about accepting suffering, I'm talking about eliminating it, or at least striving to eliminate it even if complete eliminate is not actually possible (c.f. Sisyphus) or desirable. It might be that the optimal level of suffering is not zero, or that the optimal level is lower than the lowest attainable level. But it is clear that both of those are significantly lower than what have now. I don't think any reasonable person can look at what is going on in Syria or South Sudan or Bangladesh and not believe that we can do better without violating the laws of physics.
It does a lot more than that. It has quite a lot to say about the social class system of the early 20th century.
> I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that.
Why not? Our nature is to be angry and jealous and violent some times too. Transcending those qualities is generally considered progress (it's called "growing up") so why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering?
> I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy.
Camus was an idiot.