A simple enough premise

We don't need to know everything in order to act.

Generally, there is nothing about the process of augmenting a knowledge base that changes what had already been a part of the knowledge base beforehand. For example, if I have one rotten apple and no other fruits, then happen to discover four perfectly edible apples in the future, the four edible apples do not magically transform the rotten apple into an edible apple.

If we can basically assert that something is "rotten" about life, then becoming aware of some add-on component to the universe, or something that exists outside of the universe entirely, does not magically make that rotten facet of life something worth indulging in or perpetuating.

Strangely enough, though, the vast majority of people will tell you that life is worth perpetuating from one generation to the next -- in spite of hard suffering, the lack of purpose or accomplishment, and the inability of any one organism to ultimately survive; further, they'll tell you that hardship and suffering are essential, as without them, we'd be bored all day long.

So what they're saying, more directly, is that we must all eat a rotten apple once in a while in order to enjoy the good apples. Is this premise really accurate, or will our biological drives to consume fruit rich in nutrients remain in tact without this insipid indulgence? If most people are right, then you better get on making sure there's a nasty, disgusting, worm-ridden apple in each bag you purchase. You wouldn't want to have no real appreciation for the good ones, would you?