Then you must agree that it's not a great leap to assume that the majority of intelligent people are also the beneficiaries of the prospering subsections of economy, thanks to neoliberal policies. Not everyone gets to be a winner, but those with more intelligence would probably find themselves in skilled work and not feel the effects of the EU policy quite as much. Think about how many would intelligently vote against their economic interests. They do say 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it'. I think it's pretty fitting in this context. I have several pro-EU friends who openly admitted some of my arguments were convincing, but they would likely suffer in employment prospects if there was a leave outcome.The evidence is on the remain side, you might be an exception but there is evidence the strongest correlation for voting remain was intelligence. It's not surprising Cambridge voted remain but Peterborough voted leave.
Also, Intelligence falls on a bell curve, half are above average and half below. Sadly though, a day will come when being more intelligent than the first half won't help your prospects in a faltering economy wholly dependent on foreign imports. Nor will it help you if pitch forks arrive at the door because there's a revolution due to increased social inequity. Do you choose to adapt now, or delay to sometime in the near future? You must agree that intelligence has nothing to do with political opinion? Or are you saying that the left are more intelligent than the right?
I have a lot of intelligent friends who were pro-brexit, but more that we're remain. But I must say, a lot of the intelligent people still had arguments backed up only with ignorance or gut feelings, the problem with democracy is that we reduce political arguments down to opinion, most are not nearly sufficiently informed to even have a meaningful debate on the topic of the EU, therefore I should imagine even the intelligent vote doesn't matter much, as often they are as ignorant as the un-intelligent arguments, the former just sound better. I don't think I could ever devote the time to delve into all the complexities of arguments for and against the EU. I went with what I felt was the moral decision, as opposed to how I would benefit from further neoliberal policy.
I don't believe in a socialist utopia, I'm a realist, but I know eco-socialism is easier to implement in a localised economy that is not hell bent on privatising everything and exporting all of the negative costs on the commons. Reducing capitals flows in and out of a system is the easiest way to form a smaller closed loop economy. Gigantism, and super centralised economies make sense in system with unlimited energy, and no consequences to unending growth and consumption, but we don't live in that system. We live on earth.Also if you think we are heading towards some socialist nirvana you are going to be disappointed, did you not notice the group lobbying hardest for leave were from the right.
I have no doubt's that the right wish to relax red tape on the environment, but the EU was only paying lip service to the ecology problem anyway. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... s-officialWe will shift our economic model away from Europe and towards the US, those same people are itching to undo the environmental protections we inherited from the EU. You should have listened harder to what people like Jacob Rees-Mogg and Douglas Carswell were saying.
As for the shift to the US (and the rest of the world), indeed this was the logical step, temporarily our imports will come from further afield, but at increasing cost, this may eventually trigger some change in the way goods are produced and consumed.
We better get started find a solution sooner rather than later then.Also, we aren't going to suddenly become self-sufficient in food, we haven't been for two hundred years. There are too many people and not enough fertile land.
Also could you can get a citation for this part:
if this assumption is based on typical industrial agriculture production methods, I can see why you arrived here. The status quo of agriculture and therefore the reasoning behind what is possible, and what is not, is very myopic. We'll need to change our practices, if we apply permaculture principles to our agri-production methods, we can probably do a lot better in terms of yield/acre. Also, lots of untapped land. The thing about humans is they can produce resources as well as destroy them, arable land and fertile soil included, i.e. we can make more of it. Of course, don't expect to be harvesting your crops by the tractor load. It's going to look very different. I appreciate this sounds far fetched and eco-topia like. But it's actually possible, we are just so shuttered by the status quo that most won't even stop to think about the possibilities. Think plato's cave.There are too many people and not enough fertile land.