You're going to love this! The reason we have a surplus of food is precisely because we have the "wrong" people in control; you see, capitalism optimizes inefficiencies, and in the case of food it translates on maximizing production of specific items in regions suitable for those items (eg. no pineapple harvesting in Norway; no salmon production in Ecuador), instead of catering to the specific needs of those regions (Norway still gets pineapples and Ecuador can eat salmon), by maximizing supply and demand.
This works *remarkably* well. So well, that we also create products to help increase production because more production generically == more $$, and $$ is the final goal. However, too much production is not good, but we can store stuff - specially if it is season-dependent. So you produce for the market during a season, and store the rest to sell off-season, to maximize profit for your investment; That's why you don't have famines in developed countries for more than a century - there is typically enough of essential goods for 6 months to a year, and because you only produce a limited set of items (others you buy) you are not dependent on your own production to feed everyone.
In the end, the surplus is a side effect of market optimization performed by capitalism. We just need to ajdust the distribution mechanism to rely less on the same capitalist principles, and ensure that most people get what they need. That's the tricky part.

> Maybe true, but if those traits are passed through culture to their children then what is the difference?
The difference is, when it was the last time you felt compelled to burn a witch? or to kill a fellow man because of the skin of his color? If culture was passed without change, you we would all still behave like neanderthals and speak whatever language they spoke. Most of us speak another language and can count above 10 AND knows the concept of zero and that witches dont really exist. Because culture.
Culture changes. Culture evolves. Genetics take a bit longer to catch up.
> Anyway I am unaware of universally accepted definition of goodness either.
True :)

100% of the people that survived the potato famine were the offspring of someone. Btw the potato famine killed around 1 million people, and World War I killed around 20 million, just to put that in perspective. You're worried about plants when you should be worried about being shot by your fellow man :d

...Or not. Tomorrow you may literally have a breakthrough on extracting plastics from the body.

But fun fact if you're not aware - people have suffered the effect of pollution for millenia; from makeup to hats, lead, asbestos and arsenic were components very common until the end of the 19th century; Kingdoms were forged and lost with lead poisoning. The thing is - as you pointed out - you already know what is causing problems; It didn't took centuries, but decades. As a result, diagnostics and treatments are also more speedy and efficient, as a result of tech improvements and better scientific knowledge.

I still remember when AIDS was a death sentence. Things change, and with tech they tend to change quickly.

Yes, access to drinking water alone is a huge milestone. Sanitation is another. Cheap clothing is another (global warming will bring harsher winters in some regions). Being able to access artificial light to grow food out of season is another. Being able to access a global library encompassing all of humankind with tutorial videos on advanced topics may also help.
Your ancestors had none of these, and they still survived.

> Or I suppose you could raise your children to be more efficient, use fewer resources, or be the next generation of creative thinkers that invent new ways to feed millions of people
This. But keep in mind we already have a surplus of food worldwide - this is not a problem today, and while there will be a shift in eating habits worldwide, it wont happen in one day.

There are no genetic traits I'm aware of for goodness. It is not an inheritable trait, but (in my opinion) mostly a consequence of the environment and the upbringing religion.

> In case of the climate change, people who care about it enough will stop having children, so the world ends up populated by the people who do not care. At that point the climate may take out the human civilization, who apparently don't care enough to do anything about it, so there is no problem.
People that stop having children because of climate change have no place in breeding in the first place; Lets stop glorifying stupid people. Climate change *is happening* within their lifetimes, and humanity will adapt as it always does. Some of those children will be the *utmost intelligent human beings that ever walked the earth* - and will surely come up with both novel and ingenious ideas on both how to survive consequences of the climate change and maybe on how to reverse it.
If you're so worried about climate change, less than 100 companies account for >50% of the global emissions. Shutting them down *today* won't make a huge difference (as we need to offset dozens of decades of emissions), but its at least less defeating than the resignation you're proposing.

Nothing good awaited anyone in the past, etiher. As an european, it was war, plague, famine or war. Did I mentioned war? Oh and dying in a colony as a result of plague, famine or war.Also, there was a global rehersal of influenza (its even from the same family!) just a couple of years ago - we fared pretty well when compared with the 1918 influenza pandemic or the black plague. So, you're saying you prefer a 19th century doctor to your regular one? Are you willing to go under surgery without sanitation or anesthetic? How brave of you.

In 1944, adults at the table were discussing if they would survive another year of famine. In 1964, adults at the table were discussing if they would survive a nuclear war. Humanity will survive, and the planet is the same as it has ever been. Millions of people die from disease, hunger and natural disasters. We are still here. Still, your child will have a better future you would ever have: better drugs, better healthcare, easier access to food, clean water and travel. Oh and agricultural output - farm lands are quite more efficient today than they ever were (translation: less land for the same amount of crops). Are you a moron? Yah climate crisis is real, we need to take it seriously (by phasing out oil, working on sequestering carbon, and bring regulation on some industries and imports) - from there to the fear-mongering shit I've been seeing, there is an extra step. The moron step. Don't go moron. Part of the moron step is that your children will live in that world. No, you will probably live in that world. YOU. And if you're posting in slashdot, you're probably will be fine - stop blaming others and living in fear. We just went through a pandemic, it should be enough to show you how fragile but resilient we are. Right now, when you are too worried if people will have "resources" tomorrow (such a ridiculous ranking, btw), you may have people starving in your city. If you care, start there, and then tell us about "the state of humanity".

I haven't posted a comment here in a long time, but your degree of delusion stroke a chord with me. The most important thing you learn in school is not knowledge, but instead how to be social - manage conflict, understanding other people point of view (even if you don't agree), and how to defend yourself. By excluding your child from this, you are basically raising someone who will never get back those years or those experiences. I was an awkward child, with interests completely outside of the scope of children at the time. I paid no attention in school, was an average student except some disciplines where I was completely off the charts without effort; others were the opposite. What school gave me was social interaction and the skills to navigate a world that is very different from my own. I would bet dollars to peanuts, your child is very different from yourself (as mine- who actually attended the same school - is). Please stop punishing your kids for your shortcomings, and instead acknowledge your differences. There is no shame in being different, and lets be blunt - you seem to be clearly a moron.

Well, Im the opposite. I cant stand desktops broke down into multiple windows at a time, because I only interact with one at a time. Often most of my dozens of windows are fullscreen (on both monitors - a 24" FHD and a 27" 4K, and I switch between them using either alt+tab or the mouse. It is not uncommon to have between 3 and 5 IDE windows open while working on a project, just for dev stuff. All are fullscreen, because I only use them one at a time.

While I do agree with most of your points, I don't agree on the notion that RDBMS are a poor fit for most applications. The problem is, you shouldn't model databases after application structures, but the other way around. Picking on the configuration example, if you are using a RDBMS you don't design your product configuration logic and then see how to fit on a DB, you design the DB schema first, and then implement your product configuration logic. Why? Because the bottleneck is usually the DB, but the degree of implementation freedom is narrower. In other words, the DB schema will be the most important part of it performance-wise, but given the lack of possible implementation approaches, you will find a reasonable implementation faster.

Even when not using traditional relational databases, SQL capabilities are usually a huge value. Have a look at Athena, Hive or ClickHouse as examples.

Every system has its limitations, and DB's are just a variation of that. Computers themselves aren't very fond of eg. fractional numbers, but we still implement robust systems regardless of those limitations. Heck, some CPUs can't even perform a division operation, but they aren't a terrible fit as a programmable device. The problem is, modern programmers tend to see "limitations" as something negative, and often forget that everything has limitations. In the "old days", limitations were just an opportunity to show true craftsmanship, instead of just doing the monkey stuff anyone can do.

In Europe, it is quite common to have 3-phase equipment, and sometimes even a 3 phase outlet on the garage or so to plug stuff. Usually the 3 phase equipment is not plug into an outlet, but directly to a derivation box, making them unmovable (common in stoves, ovens, water pumps, etc, less so in washing machines - but they do exist). I even had a 3-phase "monster" coffee machine. Many construction machines also require 3-phase power, as they rely on electrical motors.

It depends. If it is a physical product, generally yes, you will pay VAT in the UK, billed by UK customs (there is a "free tier", but not sure the amount). If it is a service, it depends how you are set up. You could use a subsidiary somewhere in the EU and use "inversion of tax" - you don't collect VAT, and it is up to the buyer to know and pay appropriate local taxes. In practice, a end-user of your service will never pay local VAT.