My parents used to be more happy when they were living in a house made of mud of 5 by 5 meters width back in Afghanistan.
We barely had enough food, my father was constantly threatened.
They were probably more happy than you and I are now, having enough to eat was enough for them.
Our goal is too find a way to end the suffering of that child.
But we shouldn't be ignorant to the fact that they might appreciate and enjoy life more than we do.
(The use of Prozac here in the west for example is skyrocketting.)
You should give rational arguments, instead of emotional plea's.
Emotional plea? No. It's a valid question. If you want to address the problem of evil, look at the worst of it: the suffering of children. Just because you're unwilling to look the reality in the eye doesn't mean it isn't there. The fact that your family enjoyed living in a hut is irrelevant.
I remember reading
Is That It? by Bob Geldof when I was in school. One thing always stuck with me since. I've never been able to get it out of my head. He described how children in drought and poverty stricken Africa had only dry grain to eat. They were so malnourished and dehydrated that the dry grain would tear up their intestines as it passed through and they'd end up shitting it out and dying. They'd literally shit their insides out.
That's your evil right there. I'll ignore the silliness at the end of your post and I'll ask the question again: who benefits from that scenario?