The People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast

We explore a question from one of our listeners during this episode. This came from Jaryd in Ireland, "What are our top 5 stupid moments making the podcast?"

This is part 3 of a 3 part series where William looks back at classic installments of the podcast. William listened back to this past episode to see how his point of view have maybe altered since the recording. For this episode we’re travelling back to Christmas of last year  (2019), and and a discussion about David Attenborough’s series, Seven Worlds, One Planet. This selected classic episode was originally released on the 26th December, Boxing Day (2019). William chose this episode as it has been overall one of most listened to shows. We talk about the potential impact of Attenborough's series, comparing it his previous Blue Planet program which had such a big effect on the public psyche. We both felt at the time that we didn’t need to watch it to understand the impact we are all having on the natural world. We invite you to enjoy this classic episode, and do you think we're right in not watching it? Let us know, we like to be challenged in our own assumptions.

This is part 2 of a 3 part series where William looks back at classic installments of the podcast. William listened back to this past episode to see how his point of view have maybe altered since the recording. The second in this mini series takes us back to March this year, and an episode that marked the last time Stuart and William recorded together in the same room. It has also been one of our best performing episodes in recent times, which is why William singled it out. The episode we released on the 27th March 2020, however the more important date was when we recorded it, which was the 16th March 2020, a week before the UK went into full lock down due to the Corona Virus. We invite you to enjoy this classic episode, and would particularly like to hear what you think about what we discussed, and how we can make sure we don’t get entrenched in our own opinions.

This marks the dawn of a 3 part series where William looks back at classic installments of the podcast. William listened back to this past episode to see how his point of view have maybe altered since the recording. This first in this mini series takes us back to our very first edition of the podcast, which is why William singled it out. It's when we welcomed journalist Pete Hughes of the Oxford Mail, and originally released on this platform on the 21st July 2019. We explored three tough environmental questions; How much effect do humans have on other animals survival? Are we causing more extinction than before? AND Is human existence always at a cost to nature? This was very much the starting point of this podcast's concept and format, and was originally recorded in 2018. This will in fact be the 3rd time this episode has been publicly released, as this podcast was originally only released through Soundcloud before we found Anchor. Who now host and distribute our material. We were very much finding our feet with the format, though from the outset we were not afraid to tackle big questions. It’s great to listen back to this episode as it shows the strength of the format. Also listening with fresh ears William picked up on different details, and also feels that his personal opinion has changed since then. We invite you to enjoy this classic episode, and while you’re listening, we’d like you to think how you would have answered the questions we posed, and do you think we covered the topic and themes we discussed thoroughly enough? Would you like us to maybe return to one of these questions in the future?

Part 12 - Progress : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 11 - Planning : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 10 - Development : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 9 - Adaptation : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 8 - Finding New Structure : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 7 - Taking Stock : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 6 - Shock : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 5 - Fear : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 4 - Disbelief : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 3 : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 2 : Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

Part 1: Stuart and William share insights, tips and ideas on how they're adapting to the current situation, and give you the listener actions to occupy some of your time.

 In this episode we welcomed Oxford University scientist, Dr Alexandra Moral. The three questions, which once again inspired an interesting debate, are; - How would we be acting differently if we recognised nature as a separate/sovereign nation?" Not that we should necessarily, but I would be interested to explore how different or not society might be? - People are working behind the scenes on things like locking away carbon within algal blooms that sink and form rock, and also drilling into rock and storing it there within Limestone etc. Should we be focusing our efforts in these mitigation measures or the processes we as individuals are given to live and work by? Or both? - Is there such a creature as an urban animal?

Welcome to our learning‑led discussion series, where William Mankelow, Stuart “The Wildman” Mabbutt, and you—the audience—shape the conversation together.Your questions arrive unopened, and we explore them in real time, discovering the topic at the same moment you do.We don’t present ourselves as definitive authorities. Instead, we approach each question as curious learners, ready to examine ideas from fresh angles, embrace uncertainty, and see where thoughtful dialogue can take us.Kholoud, a Palestinian Refugee living in Long Eaton, England sets the initial question for discussion- “Does gun ownership lead to mass shootings and does religion cause wars?”The discussion explores how access to weapons and human decision‑making interact in acts of violence. One view suggests that widespread gun availability increases the potential for mass harm, while another emphasizes that individuals ultimately choose whether to use a weapon. The conversation also examines religion’s role in conflict: some argue it is often used as a justification rather than a true cause, while others highlight that many faiths promote peace at their core. Both co-hosts reflect on how cultural influences, personal responsibility, and societal conditions shape behaviour, noting that tools or beliefs become harmful only when people decide to use them in that way.Andrew, from Barrow, Alaska, USA asks the next question - “Do you think it's worthwhile engaging with that which we don’t like?”The conversation explores how personal biases shape our preferences and how engaging with unfamiliar or initially disliked ideas can deepen understanding. One perspective highlights that everyone carries assumptions, yet genuine openness can reveal unexpected appreciation. Another view emphasizes the value of examining our dislikes rather than avoiding them, noting that automatic reactions often mask the real reasons behind our judgments. By analysing media, performances, or viewpoints he finds unappealing, one co-host discovers that his reactions often stem from perceived inauthenticity rather than disagreement alone. Examples include reassessing a music genre after giving it proper attention, or recognising why certain styles—such as highly improvised music—do not resonate personally. The discussion concludes with the idea that exploring what we think we dislike is an important part of learning, encouraging listeners to stay curious even when something doesn’t immediately appeal to them.What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.comSign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilitiesWe like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

We’re recording this episode at the very beginning of January, our first session after the New Year, and yet it does not feel new at all.In this podcast, listeners send in questions that we do not see before we press record, and we answer them cold, with no preparation. Hopefully that makes us relatable, because life often presents us with difficult questions at unexpected moments. Our first listener question for this episode comes from the lovely village town of Charlbury, Oxfordshire, with John setting the following query:  “Can we disagree with civility?”Stuart makes the stark point off the bat:  if we choose to? Yes. End of episode. Spoiler alert: the episode doesn’t end at this point!William argues that managing anger and emotional baggage is essential, but acknowledges that antagonism can arise when someone approaches aggressively. He suggests that in some situations, people respond with aggression because it is the only language they know.The second question for today’s ramble comes from Ray in Newmilns, Scotland - “What do you think about someone having a target and announcing it all over social media, as opposed to coming off social media, focusing on the target, and then going back on social media to announce it?”Stuart observes that on social media, even getting through the day is often framed as a series of targets, with people sharing every small achievement. He suggests that when people put targets or goals out into the world, they should make them relatable and meaningful to others, otherwise it becomes unfocused self expression, rather than something people can genuinely engage with.William speaks from experience when he explains that spending too much energy on social media, worrying about what or how to post, can distract from the actual goal. He adds that new ideas often spark impulsive action, but taking a longer term approach, reflecting on the idea, and involving collaborators, can strengthen the outcome and make the project more effective.Stuart believes that focusing on a goal in private allows better concentration and avoids the need for external validation. He emphasizes the impact of reappearing with a finished project, noting that oversharing the journey can bore the audience and reduce engagement.William believes that adults still carry a child inside them seeking approval, which drives much of their social media activity. He warns that people often overinvest in social media, putting energy into things that do not need to be shared.What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.comSign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilitiesWe like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside

Surely you have something better to do with your life, than listening to this podcast? There must be something else you could be doing, right now? Perhaps you have some paint to watch dry?No? Then let’s dive into today’s episode of The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. We are not the go to experts. We are just two regular guys exploring big issues cold, with every conversation starting from a question sent in by a listener.The first of today’s two listener questions comes from John in the lovely village town of Charlbury, in Oxfordshire, England. He asks, “We say making memories with loved ones is what matters, but what is their meaning if they die with us?”Stuart suggests that making memories is an active process, that inevitably has consequences, and those consequences affect other people’s lives.William explains that when he spends time with people who matter deeply to him, he focuses on being fully present, rather than trying to create memories.Stuart explains that while people may make memories with those close to them, it’s the ongoing shared moments that anchor them in the present, leaving a retained emotional warmth, that motivates future connection and sustains the relationship, even though that residual feeling is intangible.William believes that being present, in meaningful moments, with close friends and loved ones, provides strength in the moment and a reservoir of memories to draw on during difficult times. Ultimately, what sustains him most is the hope of seeing those he cares about again before he dies.The second question in this episode comes from the middle of the ocean, from Kev in St George’s, Bermuda. He asks, “Are the drivers of aspiration directly connected to the drivers of reduced biodiversity?”Stuart believes that aspiring to something does not have to be unsustainable. He suggests that one could, for example, aspire to become a leading expert in biodiversity. The doyen if you please.William feels that the common idea of aspiration often involves wanting more than you currently have, which can reduce biodiversity because it increases consumption.Stuart suggests that blindness, or a lack of awareness, is a key driver of aspiration, and a factor in the reduction of biodiversity.William argues that overconsumption extends beyond material goods, to how we use land. He gives the example of Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire, England, questioning whether such a large house and extensive grounds, for a single family are truly necessary, framing it as overconsumption of space, and resources.Stuart concludes this episode: suggesting that culture can influence both aspiration and reduced biodiversity, but the separation is complex. He explains that biodiversity can be affected indirectly. For example, damage along a bird migration route, can impact nesting sites far away. While some impacts are connected to aspiration, others are isolated, making it difficult to separate the drivers entirely. Overall, he concludes, that aspiration and reduced biodiversity are connected, but do not have to be.What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to ⁠thepeoplescountryside@gmail.comWe like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends podfollow.com/ThePeoplesCountrysideEnvironmentalDebatePodcast , support our work through Patreon patreon.com/thepeoplescountryside⁠. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: linktr.ee/thepeoplescountrysideSign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities