We sit here bravely tackling listener questions hurled at us from every corner of the globe — completely unprepared and slightly afraid. We don’t see them until we hit record, which explains a lot. As for Grzegorz’s name, William took one look and noped out like a man dodging a spelling bee in Polish. He respects names too much to turn them into interpretive dance.
Paul, from Queensland, Australia places the first question for discussion today- “Nothing is morally right or morally wrong. Right, wrong and morality don’t even exist in some people's eyes. The world is not just meaningless, but also absurd. What do you think?”
William kicks things off by declaring humans are the cosmic equivalent of a plot twist no one saw coming — absurd creatures who somehow made it this far despite centuries of questionable decisions and poor impulse control.
Stuart zooms out and says, “Nope, it’s all absurd,” pointing to algae that spent two billion years evolving and making oxygen like the world’s slowest intern. William agrees, but finds beauty in the chaos — Earth’s lucky lottery of moon tilts, Jupiter’s debris vacuuming, and rotational chill make life both ridiculous and miraculous.
Stuart questions morality itself, wondering if it’s just a group project we all pretend to understand.
William, meanwhile, marvels at humanity’s obsession with upgrades, even though we’re all headed for the same existential exit — suggesting we cherish the people who make the absurdity worthwhile.
Grzegorz, from Opole, Poland sets the next question- “Is Reform UK really a political party outside of the UK establishment?”
William shuts it down with a firm “No. End of episode,” like a man refusing to debate whether water is wet.
Stuart’s intrigued that the question came from someone outside the UK — or maybe just someone pretending to be exotic while living in Croydon. He agrees: Reform UK isn’t some rebellious outsider, no matter how many pub speeches say otherwise.
William adds, noting Farage is basically the Hogwarts head boy of the establishment — all robes, no magic. He vents that Farage is a walking cartoon of privilege, somewhere between a monocle and a Boris Johnson impersonator. Starmer, he concedes, has made some eyebrow-raising moves, but at least he doesn’t look like he was grown in a Westminster petri dish.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
We 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
Welcome back to another episode of Greenwashed & Unhinged — the podcast where we pretend to care about the planet while blindly stumbling through your questions like eco-conscious toddlers in a philosophy seminar.
Before we dive in, a heartfelt shoutout to our beloved listener Hannen Beith. Hannen, darling, pull your finger out and send us a question. We know you’re lurking. Contribute or be composted.
Elodie, from Brittany, France sets the first question today - “Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?”
Stuart muses that human power corrupts faster than compost rots in July—unless wielded by a unicorn of selflessness. He compares it to gravity: powerful, universal, and blissfully unaware of politics.
William argues corruption is a human invention, like spreadsheets or reality TV. Together, they liken it all to gardening: no plant is evil unless it takes over. So, when in charge, don’t believe your own hype—listen twice as much as you talk. Nature does, and it hasn’t tried to run for office.
Debs, from Didcot, Oxfordshire, England set the second of today's questions - “Someone from Thames Water, when talking about the potential new Oxfordshire reservoir, said, “we need to focus on identifying and moving the wildlife out of the way”, that shows a distinct lack of understanding of mitigating ones environmental impact”.
Stuart fondly recalls the time builders lovingly flattened an ancient wildflower meadow for six months, then heroically promised to fix it with a sprinkle of generic grass seed — because clearly, green equals biodiversity. He reminds us that ecosystems aren’t IKEA furniture: you can’t just relocate wildlife and expect it to “assemble itself.”
William adds that animals aren’t invading cities — we built over their homes and now call them “urban” like it’s a lifestyle choice.
Stuart, ever the diplomat, declares his tulip rights while denying nature any.
William defends the underdogs — foxes, pigeons, crows — nature’s misunderstood freeloaders. Moral of the story? Think long-term. Or at least longer than six months.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
We 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
If you want the go to experts, that's not us, you've come to the wrong podcast. This is however the podcast where co-hosts Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and William Mankelow, discuss questions sent in by you the listeners.
The first of the two listener questions for today’s episode comes in the form of this epic enquiry from Bronwen, in Atlanta, Georgia, USA - “Does hardship make our species stronger?”
William tentatively starts out by saying that hardship does make our species stronger.
Stuart feels it does too, but it's not necessarily what makes us stronger. Instead, it’s the whole package of experience that helps us along.
Stuart explains that hardship depends on mindset; for him, it’s simply something to endure, and move through, rather than dwell on as good or bad.
William notes that people often dwell too much on such things; he feels tired after two days of physical work, but views it not as a hardship, rather as a natural consequence of effort.
Off the back of Bronwen’s question Stuart comes up with the following action: drill down into the words you use in your daily vocabulary.
William, not wanting to feel left out, comes up with this action: He reflects on how people in the UK often label weather as good or bad, though he believes it is simply a matter of mindset. He tries to view weather neutrally, whether wet, hot, or dry, and focuses instead on preparing for it. He suggests this perspective can be applied more broadly to life.
The second question for this episode, which really got Stuart and William thinking, comes from Paul, in Queensland, Australia - “Is it more important to help yourself, help your family, help your society, or help the world?”
Stuart emphasizes that change begins with one's self; one cannot change anything else without first changing themselves. He likens the self to an umbrella, with various aspects extending in different directions, none more important than the others.
William agrees with the umbrella metaphor, noting that if you can manage yourself, you can help others. He also believes that small, thoughtful actions in everyday life can make a significant difference.
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.com
We 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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
This is the podcast where listeners send questions for us to conversate around, and although not always to do with the environment, we always try to bring an action back to the that in some way. We're not the go-to experts. We're the go-to guys who are willing to explore things cold, and change our minds as we go through.
The first listener question comes from Unity, in Paddock Wood, Kent, England - “Do you guys feel overwhelmed by the mass migration into and across Europe? Many react when cultures collide in these situations. We don’t think about the countries these migrants are leaving behind, as often it can be the brightest and the best that are leaving out of desperation, heading for beacons of better lives. Though there may also be darker reasons too. Those left behind can include the weak, who have no support. We need to support these countries as they rebuild and manage the drivers that lead to others leaving. This is just the start of modern mass migration”.
William sees it as Unity states in her question, that it is only the start of a mass migration.
Stuart reflects on how migration often involves the most capable individuals, leaving their countries out of desperation, sometimes leaving behind those with fewer resources or who need support.
William observes that society is increasingly building metaphorical walls between cultures, fostering unnecessary division and misunderstanding.
Stuart feels we are millennia away from being anything but the tribal animal we are.
William’s environmental action: he encourages taking practical, manageable steps toward addressing the climate crisis. When feeling overwhelmed by its scale, he believes it’s important to break the challenge into smaller, achievable actions.
Stuart highlights the importance of empathy ,and self-awareness in everyday interactions. He suggests that when someone feels irritated by another person—say, on a bus—it’s worth remembering that the other person is human too and not necessarily a total c***!
The second question comes from Estefania, in Jalisco, Mexico - “Does talking about death, speak it into existence? Is that why some cultures don’t discuss it?”
Stuart believes that talking about death doesn’t bring it into existence—it’s a reality that already exists.
William argues that avoiding talk of death stems from superstition and taboo rather than reason. He compares it to the idea of “tempting fate” by mentioning the weather—pointing out that words don’t influence these events in his opinion.
Stuart feels that many cultures have just got into the habit of not talking about death, and this has turned into a taboo.
William believes it’s important to talk openly about death from an early age. He feels that understanding death as a natural part of life helps people accept it, regardless of their personal beliefs.
William’s action is to remember that everything eventually ends. He sees this not as morbid, but as a reminder to appreciate the present.
Stuart’s action: to filter out the stuff that doesn't matter and you'll begin to realize very little does matter. It's all a distraction.
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.com
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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
An episode where there's no one in the Listeners Chair as Alex has returned to university to study Microsoft Paint so the remaining panel records blind. Listeners submit questions in advance; the hosts open them only when the red light goes on, responding cold and unrehearsed. The podcast welcomes teasing and detours, but the conversation always returns to the core question. This episode is candid, focused, and unsparing — real-time thinking, no script.
Tracey, from Oxford, England sets William and Stuart the first question to explore - “Badgers are undermining my house but I can’t relocate them. They should be in the countryside, not urban areas”.
William argues badgers don’t distinguish countryside from towns; animals simply follow suitable habitats. Stuart recounts badgers collapsing a road and the Highways Agency relocating them, and he sympathizes with homeowners denied the same protection.
Both call for consistent rules and balanced action: protect property foundations, manage habitat to reduce encroachment, and minimise harm to badgers while recognising their ecological role.
Sally, from Mildura, Australia offers up the next question - “Knowledge drives everything, some say. How do we live well without making the planet unlivable for ourselves then?”
Stuart and William debate humanity’s role in the world: Stuart argues knowledge isn’t the sole driver of events and that unseen forces shape the universe, while William warns that human comforts often come at the expense of other species as people reshape the planet for their own benefit.
They challenge the idea that humans are simply parasites, presenting instead a nuanced view of our adaptability and resilience. Both contend that “living well” can mean comfort or ecological responsibility and that most choices sit in shades of gray. William closes with a practical action: listen twice as much as you speak to learn from diverse perspectives and find more balanced solutions.
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.com
We 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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Today’s episode marks a special moment as we welcome back Alex Kauffmann to the Listeners Chair for one final time before he returns to university. Before signing off, he expressed his gratitude for being part of the podcast and acknowledged that it may be a few months before he returns.
This episode also highlights an important aspect of podcasting: listener interaction. Each episode features two questions submitted by our audience. These questions vary in frequency—some listeners become regular contributors, while others send in a single question and are never heard from again. This dynamic creates a rich tapestry of engagement, showcasing the diverse interests and curiosity of our audience.
Sally, from Mildura, Australia sets the first question for us today - “I feel where social media has gone wrong, is we use it as a backdrop to our lives, giving others the perception that our lives have meaning. For example, people are incessantly posting about their holidays, and their food. The posts don’t add value to the observer, they just seem designed to impress others how well travelled and cultured we are, and giving others an insight into our digestive process. I’m not sure where it went wrong, but the value is in living and not living to prove the value of our life through social media.”
Social media often promotes curated highlights over authentic experiences. William advocates purposeful posting to inspire or inform, while Alex critiques its superficiality, viewing it as attention-seeking and disconnected from real life.
Stuart uses social media strategically to communicate impact, urging reflection over validation. Both Alex and Stuart call for mindful engagement—living in the moment and posting with clear intent, especially in environmental contexts.
Aine, Dublin, Republic of Ireland - “Man is having as big an impact if not a bigger one as the meteor that killed the non-avian dinosaurs. Can we fathom the size of that problem?”
Stuart highlights Aine’s insight that only non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. Alex views humanity’s resilience as part of ongoing evolution, suggesting extinction is less probable than other natural threats.
The group explores the limits of human perception, noting difficulty in grasping large-scale issues like climate change or asteroid impacts. William questions whether full comprehension is necessary, proposing local awareness as a practical alternative.
Stuart further challenges temporal understanding, suggesting time may be a human construct without fixed boundaries.
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.com
We 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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
It’s our 600th episode! I know what you’re thinking, they don’t sound jaded and tired, which could easily be the case, after so many episodes. That’s because with every episode, the tone is set by you dear listeners, who continue to send in questions for us to discuss. We've only got nine questions lined up at present, so get 'em in now and you'll be answered quite quickly, maybe even in time for Christmas, wouldn’t that be the best present you’ve ever received!?
Alex Kauffmann is back in the listener's chair for his penultimate episode before he buggers off back to college. Has he been with us too long, or not long enough maybe? Only you can decide.
Today’s first question comes from Estefania, Jalisco, Mexico - “We’re told the new green economy will save us, yet that's still utilising the same system that's destroying us. Green tech, if done well and for the right reasons is the right thing to do, but what we’re not told is there's one thing we can all do, that has a positive impact on all areas of climate change, that much green tech doesn't. Eat less meat and dairy”
William jumps straight in: he says that one of the biggest contributors to climate change is meat, specifically beef. So if you could eat less meat, and particularly beef, it would have a better impact, he thinks, than any new technology.
Alex explains that while challenges are inevitable, Green Tech is not destined to replicate unsustainable systems. He envisions it developing into an ecosystem, that connects with society, much like nature does, an aspiration that takes time but follows the pattern of past innovations.
Stuart recalls warning that investing in green inventions often meant funding big oil companies, which buy up patents, only to shelve them. He argues that these corporations suppress alternatives to maintain dependence on oil, later reintroducing the innovations as if they were entirely new.
And the second question for today’s charade comes from Vinroy, Linstead, Jamaica - It is a long question, and we only get 4,000 characters to play with, you can find Vinroy’s bumper of a question right here: Vinroy’s question
Alex notes that while some societies adapt to governmental and economic structures, extreme wealth concentration remains a persistent issue. He adds that cultural differences make universal solutions difficult to implement.
William highlights the organization Led by Donkeys, which exposes how the very wealthy can easily obtain foreign citizenship to offshore money and avoid taxes. He emphasizes that some people will always prioritize their own financial interests above all else. There are ways that people can actually get around it by going to organizations like this where they can actually offshore their money.
Stuart reflects that while the wealthy and the poor often operate on different value systems, true richness isn’t financial. He suggests that instead of chasing flashy wealth, society could adopt a different set of values that doesn’t revolve around material accumulation.
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.com
We 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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
This is the People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. Every episode we conversate around two listener questions, and where possible, spin the conversation around to the environment in some way, regardless of the topic covered.
In today’s episode we begin with an educational question from Unity in Paddock Wood, Kent, England - “What do you think about bringing climate change into the mainstream UK curriculum in schools? 10 years ago children's favourite word was minion, now it's climate change. Do we risk scaring children by catastrophizing? Is it better to teach older school children solutions and tools? Are we making the younger ones anxious? Do we risk promoting political activism if we educate about climate change in the wrong way? If we teach that we have no agency for change we risk just making children grow up angry, instead of driving actual change”.
Alex feels that the subject of climate change really would be best added to the subject of geography. He recalls being taught about earthquakes, pollution, and overpopulation, so there’s already catastrophising in schools. He recalls his time in secondary school, and concludes that climate change really should be there as a subject.
William brings this whole conversation around to whether this is once again an avoidance of our own mortality issue? That the subject of death around children can be an even more taboo subject than sex for example.
Stuart recalls a conversation with a teacher after listening to a past episode about climate change in the curriculum. And they were absolutely convinced that climate change had infiltrated every single lesson, but it was so subtle that nobody noticed it.
We then move onto this taxing question from Brice in Crieff, Scotland - “Should we be taxing on wealth and assets and not just income? The super rich are buying up everything and enslaving people to be in debt to them. Can we do anything until wealth is more fairly distributed, like after the second world war in the UK?”
Alex thinks that we should tax the rich which he feels everyone can agree with, but the way our societies are run, with corrupt governments, they're money hungry and therefore the rich live in the best conditions because of that. So there's not really much we can do. Who is going to tax the rich? The government, who are corrupt?
Stuart raises the point that he doesn’t necessarily think the super rich are intentionally enslaving us, but the by-product of process does.
William brings up the idea of a universal income, where everyone can afford the basics in their life, food, shelter etc. He goes onto say that he feels that is maybe idealistic, and that we humans are greedy buggers, and we don’t want anyone to have a slice of our pie.
Stuart comes up with an environmental action: We need to be more realistic with environmentalism and not think about utopian ideals. We need balance and measure.
William’s action with an environmental twist: He encourages you to get off that aspiration train, and that in itself will definitely have a positive impact on the environment.
Alex’s environmental action: We always talk about the tool and the master quite a lot. Money is a tool, not a master. It doesn't shape your life. It's what you use to live. It's not everything in life. So just think of it that way. It's a tool so use it as one.
What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Send us an email thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: Petition Link
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 Link , support our work through Patreon Patreon Link. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: Linktree Link
Alex is back in the listeners chair again today. You send in the questions, we tackle them live—always with an environmental twist and no peeking beforehand.
Jess, from Bishop’s Tatchbrook, Warwickshire, England sets the initial question - “I’ve been thinking about the police Stop and Search tactics in the UK. Should we keep it? Done for the right reasons, with truthful explanations, is it wrong? It's about how it's done I think, without aggression, reasonably and respectfully. Done well it lasts seconds, done badly it progresses and escalates”.
Alex hasn’t had much direct experience with stop and search but has heard mixed views.
William sees outcomes as shaped by the officer’s mindset, while Stuart argues stereotyping is inevitable—but misuse is harmful.
Stuart’s been stopped often and feels both sides share responsibility.
William stresses the need for solid reasoning, though Stuart defends instinct.
They discuss vague intel, lost police experience, and knowing your rights.
Stuart calls for balance; William urges activists to check their egos to avoid pointless conflict.
Vinroy, in Linstead, Jamaica sent us the next question - “Not been well recently so I have been thinking about some big issues. The world around us, including buildings and the sea, is it dominated by objects or processes?”
William sees our world as shaped by habitual processes—things built, then replaced.
Alex adds that automation plays a growing role.
Stuart argues nearly everything is a process, not an object: the sea, buildings, even plastic all undergo constant change and decay. He struggles to see anything as static. William agrees, linking deterioration to environmental forces.
Alex counters that objects exist as matter, while life itself is a process. The conversation dips into philosophy.
William’s action: don’t over define everything. Stuart’s: take time to reflect—or not. Alex’s: contemplate life’s full arc and step back from reality.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
We 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
Alex Kauffmann has resumed his role as principal moderator of ‘The Listeners Chair’, reclaiming the central chair from which audience questions are drawn. These are then picked apart and reframed within environmental contexts to tease out wider significance.
Lilly, from Summertown, Oxford, England sets the first question - “Should Oxford colleges open up more of their greenspaces to the wider population and tourists, or is it ok to keep them private and it is only the poor driving the move as they want some of what the rich have? Some people actually attending the college don’t even get to see some of the private internal areas. I heard it said opening up threatens students GDPR protection, and that students don’t really want to be disturbed. The Town and Gown rivalry still lives on, and the university often gets bad press. People often forget there are two universities in Oxford”.
Stuart, forever Lily’s “expert” after one fateful consultation, swears they’re basically besties—especially now she’s firing off another sly jab at the critic who dared to be dismissive back then.
He digresses into the “sleeve Olympics,” where longer gown fabric apparently equals status. Then, like a city tour guide, he sketches a divide between the postcard-perfect centre and “real Oxford,” the suburbs where life actually happens.
Alex, all cynicism, scoffs that locals couldn’t care less about polished lawns—they’re strictly tourist bait. William, sounding like the tourist board, notes that plenty of colleges open their gates—sometimes free for residents—though all the quads blur together: same stones, same chapels.
Back with Stuart, who moans these patches are so tiny you’d wreck your shoes circling them—and forget walking on grass.
Alex delivers his verdict: if dons don’t stroll freely, neither should tourists. William agrees students do deserve their hush-hush study sanctuaries, but insists that visitors tread as reverently as in a cathedral.
Luna, San Hose Del Cabo, Mexico brings the next question - “I see the biggest threats to humanity outside of the multiple climate related issues as truth distortion, feral social media and runaway AI. What do you think?”
Stuart resets by clarifying that “threats to humanity” means existential doom, not oat‑milk prices. He drops the wisdom of belly‑button gazing: stare too long and all you get is fluff, not enlightenment. Translation? Stop spiraling—take action, even if it’s just colour‑coding your apocalypse survival kit alphabetically.
Alex wonders whether “threats” means asteroids or endless propaganda. William connects social media, AI, and collapsing truth like red string on a board, warning not to trust any single source.
Alex, ever the optimist, claims independent news influencers are thriving, which he counts as hopeful. He advises we stop fretting constant climate doom, since total self‑destruction is unlikely. His news tip? “News Daddy,” a TikTok oracle free of corporate spin.
William closes with the mic‑drop: the gravest threat to humanity is “believing our own bullshit.” Hard to argue with that—now hand me the navel fluff.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org petition
We 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
Ever wondered what happens when a housing ladder turns into a pyramid, a mortgage that outlives its owner, and funding applications start behaving like job adverts? Then this is the episode for you!
Welcome to The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast where you, the listener, send in questions for co-hosts Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and William Mankelow to conversate around.
In today’s episode we once again welcome back Alex Kauffmann to ‘The Listener’s chair. Alex has been in the ‘Listener’s Chair’ so often that it already feels like home for him.
The first listener question for today’s episode comes from Grace in Ipswich, England and is as follows:
“We have pressures put upon us and by ourselves and others in the UK to get on the housing ladder. Is being on there really important, or is it more about people higher up the pyramid enslaving us to debt?”
From Grace’s question, Stuart highlights the difficulty of paying off mortgages, that it's hard to pay the mortgage off in your own lifetime with current wages. He stresses that housing should be about shelter, and questions whether progress on the housing ladder is real.
Alex shares his hope of becoming a homeowner, admits it’s harder than expected, and says he values a home that meets needs rather than something excessive.
William raises concerns about intergenerational mortgages, which Stuart brings as potentially being a thing in Japan. He goes on to distinguish between buying a house and climbing the housing ladder, and argues it’s not essential to be on the ladder.
The second listener question comes Lilly in Summertown, Oxford, England:
“Many say in the UK grant funders in the UK make it difficult for those seeking funding as they have different agendas and methodologies that applicants have to tap into. Yet if funders worked together, streamlined, it could iron out some of the duplication work. Funders could pool their efforts so people seeking funding have less hoops to jump through. I see to that funders want applicants to justify their impact, whereas refocusing on asking applicants what they need, to be even more impactful, could be more beneficial. Yet other people say applicants should just accept its hard work getting funding and funders are in actual fact already communicating to iron things out. Are we too willing to accept these days?”
From Lily’s question William notes the challenges of grant funding, describes the application process as a filter, and warns that securing funding is just the start of the hard work.
Stuart, who recalls meeting Lily, the person who has set this question, at a consultation, reflects on the importance of genuine impact assessments, and insists funding is only as hard as people make it.
Alex says collaboration between funders is possible, though he admits has little experience in this area, and encourages listeners to pursue their ideas without fear of failure.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We 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
In this episode of The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast, co-hosts Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and William Mankelow are once again joined by Alex Kauffmann, in the ‘Listener’s chair,’ to explore two very different, but equally thought-provoking questions sent in by listeners.
Faye from Islington, London, England, asks the first question: “We often talk about societal addictions and highlight drugs and alcohol, but isn't addiction to salaries in there too?”
From Faye’s question, William argues that salary addiction is real, but often “unseen.” He links it to ancient hunter-gatherer instincts: we have always wanted more resources for survival, and that same drive now fuels the endless chase for wealth. Like billionaires who never stop wanting more, the craving for higher salaries rarely ends. Alex describes addiction as “a drug within the mind.” He argues salary addiction sits in the same category as drugs, alcohol, or gaming because all trigger brain chemicals that can become compulsive. Stuart highlights how salaries often act as status symbols. He recalls meeting people introduced by their salary amounts, saying this fuels social pressure and unhealthy comparison.
Mark from Horspath, Oxfordshire, England, brings us the second question in today’s episode, which is as follows: “People often say about the Rhodes statue on Oriel College in Oxford that they don’t like him looking down at us during the modern day. Others say we don’t have to look, and history is history after all. Any thoughts?”
Off the back of Mark's big question, Stuart argues that the problem isn’t statues themselves, but how they’re presented. Placed high on plinths without explanation, statues imply respect. He believes they should present both the good and the bad, not sanitize history. William observes that many people barely notice statues at all — like the Rhodes statue on Oriel, which blends into the architecture. He suggests adding plaques or context boards to show “the whole picture” rather than encouraging idolization. Meanwhile Alex sees that many statues function as little more than decoration unless people actually recognize who or what they represent. Without context, they risk being “just decoration.” He compares them to religious statues, which only have meaning because people recognize their stories.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We 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
Welcome to the podcast that’s not really about people, and definitely not about the countryside—unless you count emotional landscapes and the occasional sheep metaphor.
Since the Great Plague of Zoom Calls (aka COVID), you lot have been flinging questions at us like confetti at a wedding we weren’t invited to. We don’t read them beforehand—because where’s the fun in preparation? We hit record and hope for the best.
We’ve got 18 more questions queued up, which means we’re either wildly popular or someone’s cat walked across a keyboard and hit “send” repeatedly. Either way, if you want your question featured, now’s your moment.
And yes, somewhere buried beneath our rambling, sarcasm, and occasional existential dread, there’s probably a nugget of actionable wisdom. Like a motivational quote scribbled on a pub napkin.
Jess, from Bishop’s Tatchbrook, Warwickshire, England sets the first question - “How do different forms of love (platonic, romantic, familial) direct and orchestrate our lives individually and collectively?”
Love: the emotional Swiss Army knife. Stuart says it grounds you, energizes you, distracts you, levels you out, and occasionally hijacks your to-do list. William’s all in—love is life, especially if it involves hugging trees. Stuart’s less sentimental: family is great unless you’re stuck with them like mismatched socks, and friends might just be the upgrade. William assumes families love each other (adorable), but also warns that love can morph into grief-monsters and toxic clinginess. Sometimes, the most loving thing is to ghost your relatives. And finally, William wonders: do we love the planet, or are we just swiping right on nature for the aesthetic?
Luna, from San Jose Del Cabo, Mexico sets the next question - “ What do you think of your critics?”
Stuart’s approach to criticism? Less “What did they say?” and more “How dare they make me feel things?” He’s basically running a one-man emotional focus group. William, ever the sage, thinks critics can be useful—like unsolicited life coaches with better vocabulary. But he refuses to create with critics in mind, because nothing says artistic paralysis like trying to please everyone. Stuart suggests we interrogate our environmental beliefs (cue existential crisis), while William wraps it all up with a TED Talk to a bank: be authentic, not beige. Because nothing screams soul like ignoring your shareholders.
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.com
We 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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We're the kind of people who'd lick a glacier just to say we’ve “explored it cold.” No matter what we're talking about—be it cheese, space travel, or ancient plumbing—we’ll somehow loop it back to the environment. And yes, between two questions, we casually teleport 11,000 miles—from croissants in Paris to kiwis in the Bay of Plenty. Our carbon footprint is basically a world tour.
Margot, from Paris, France is the listener setting the first question today. “What is the significance of pilgrimage in different religions?”
Alex thinks pilgrimages are just fancy holidays with extra soul-searching. Stuart’s like, “Pilgrimage? Could be a museum binge or a walk to your nan’s—whatever moves you.” William treats Finland like his personal Zen dojo. Alex says you don’t even need to leave your sofa—just vibe deeply. Stuart reckons all pilgrimages, religious or not, are just brain space with a passport. William’s in it for the emotional detox. Environmentally? Alex hugs trees locally. Stuart reads the fine print before jumping on the eco-bandwagon. William wants pilgrimages with less carbon and more conscience.
Ryan, from Bay Of Plenty, New Zealand sets the next question. “Does the concept of fate or destiny play a role in the meaning of life and choices we make?”
Alex treats destiny like a cosmic suggestion box—no proof, but hey! Stuart’s into fate with a side of free will, like life’s a GPS with optional detours. William’s not buying it—he’s Team DIY Life Plan. Alex likes spreadsheets over spontaneity. Stuart says embracing life’s chaos is liberating, like nihilism but with better PR. William, after hearing the others, realizes he’s never properly Googled “destiny” and might give it a second thought. Eco twist? Alex says ponder fate while hugging a tree. Stuart suggests debating destiny to save the planet. William wants to slow-cook his existential crisis and see if it’s compostable.
The video link of the race William refers to which was when Australian Steven Bradbury won gold medal at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUi4-H6hfw8
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We 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
Since COVID, this podcast has pretty much been all about the questions that you, the listener, have sent in for Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and William Mankelow, the two co-hosts, to conversate around.
In every episode, two of these listener questions are discussed, and by sheer coincidence, both questions in today’s episode, have come from the same person; Elodie in Brittany, France.
The first of Elodie’s questions is as follows: “What does the ideal form of government look like, and why?”
From this question the conversation begins with an exploration of what constitutes an ideal form of government. Stuart advocates for a system that is fair, progressive, and breaks free from traditional constraints, even referencing John Lydon's controversial support for Donald Trump, as an example of challenging the establishment. William counters with a stark reality check, arguing that Trump causes real harm to working people and asserting that no truly ideal government can exist, due to inherent human disagreement and dissent.
The discussion evolves into a fascinating examination of power dynamics, with William drawing unexpected parallels between government structures and the music industry's shift from record label dominance to streaming platform control. Both hosts ultimately agree that effective governance requires balance - strong leadership willing to make difficult decisions, paired with robust opposition ready to find middle ground through reconciliation.
The second question from Elodie is “How do names and labels influence our perceptions and reality?
William expresses discomfort with gendering non-human objects like hurricanes and ships, leading to a broader conversation about the difference between grammatical gender and sexual identity. Stuart provocatively argues that society's obsession with labeling - whether by profession, sexuality, or identity - may actually hinder progress, rather than advance it.
The hosts examine the LGBTQ+ movement through different lenses, with William viewing it as necessary activism against those who deny gender diversity, while Stuart questions whether continued focus on gender categories prevents true social evolution.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We 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 cover two listener questions in today’s episode, with two guests once again in the Listener’s Chair, those being Alex Kauffmann and Suzi Darrington, who sit alongside the regular co-hosts Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and William Mankelow.
The two questions up for discussion are: “How do technological advancements alter scientific methodologies?” which was sent in by Floss in Gimli, Manitoba, Canada, and “Can ethical consumption ever exist in a capitalistic society?” which was posed by Paul in Queensland, Australia.
From Floss’s question, Alex feels that technology evolves to become more accurate and precise over time, forcing scientific methodologies to adapt accordingly. Suzi sees positive AI applications in science (early breast cancer detection for example) but is concerned about how it’s being used in the creative fields, while Stuart advocates for technology to enhance rather than replace human skills and awareness. William emphasizes viewing AI as a tool rather than a master, for example it can be useful for mentoring when human mentors aren't accessible. He feels it all comes down to how AI is used.
Then from Paul’s question, William attempts to define ethical consumption by encouraging you to "stop buying crap and just buy what you actually need to exist", while Suzi posits the idea that “ if consumption is ethical, it would have to be good, not just neutral. But she thinks when people criticize consumption under capitalism, the suggestion is that it's not only not ethically good, it's actually ethically bad because it relies on someone's exploitation.” Meanwhile Alex believes that pure ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible, and advocates to be conscious of your environmental impact in consumption decisions. Stuart questions whether anyone is truly outside the capitalist system - he asks "aren't we all in the system?"
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.com
We 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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We don't necessarily talk about the countryside on this podcast as much as we used to or should do, maybe. You, the listeners, now send in questions for us to conversate around. We don't see the questions until we press record, and we always try to spin it back to the environment in some way.
In this episode we have two guests in the listener’s chair, the first guests in a long while, or should we say chairs? One returning guest, and one podcast newbie, those being Suzi Darrington, and Alex Kauffmann.
Jess, from Bishop’s Tatchbrook, Warwickshire, England asks the first question - “Can we trust our memories, or do they alter our perception of reality in the moment and over time?”
Stuart kicks off with two oldies, two newbies—this’ll be fun!. He suspects age might split opinions.
Suzi, the memory maestro, says perception’s shaped by memories but isn’t totally unreliable (even if your brain sometimes edits like a bad film director).
Stuart wonders if we can trust memories at all.
Alex chimes in: nostalgia is basically Photoshop for the past.
William notes childhood memories are fuzzy, recent ones clearer—but we all cherry-pick.
They all agree: memory messes with reality, but it’s still useful. Final takeaway? Use your warped recollections to fuel eco-action. Just don’t trust them to find your lost keys.
Unity, from Paddock Wood, Kent, England sets todays second question - “What role does genetics play in the debate between free will and determinism?”
Suzi wonders if we’re just meat robots running on genetic Wi-Fi.
Alex compares determinism to infinity—huge, mysterious, and not great dinner party material.
William shrugs: He acts like he has free will, even if he’s just a well-dressed algorithm.
Stuart brings up Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation to prove some things are just too bonkers to grasp.
Suzi asks: if we’re coded, can we still be blamed for binge-watching reality TV?
Tribalism and cognitive dissonance get a shoutout—because ignoring facts is basically a hobby.
Alex muses that evolution is slow genetic editing.
William says we’re built to adapt, even to climate chaos.
Final takeaway? Whether you’re free or pre-programmed, use your mysterious powers for good—especially for the planet.
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.com
We 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
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
You could rewind the podcast, listen in reverse, and Stuart (co-host) would still sound like he's decoding alien transmissions. People keep saying we should be 'industry voices'—but the world has plenty of self-appointed sages peddling their predictable patter. We’d rather stay unpredictable than be another echo in the expert chamber.
Vinroy, from Linstead, Jamaica sets the first listener question today - “Would a multiverse be compatible with our current understanding of reality?”
William (your other co-host) ponders, what even is reality? Stuart shrugs and suggests reality’s just a dodgy software update away from collapsing. Cue William, citing His Dark Materials, where every time you pick tea over coffee, another universe spins off with deeply confused baristas. Stuart steers things into, if it feels good, it’s probably carbon neutral territory, while William counters, change hurts. Stuart argues life shouldn't feel like an eco bootcamp. William admits his internal habits committee is... inefficient. The multiverse? Tempting. But for now, this one’s tricky enough.
Scott, Arisaig, Scotland - “Can we ever claim to have absolute knowledge about anything? The human brain can’t conceive the notion of nothingness. Before the big bang, there was nothing. What did that look like? Can a human brain ever conceive of that.”
William isn’t buying Scott’s nothing before the Big Bang theory—he reckons there was probably something, even if it was just cosmic awkward silence. Stuart thinks time is just our brains trying to make calendars feel important. William drops in 14 billion years like it’s a fun fact; Stuart counters with do we really know why water’s wet? Before spiraling into Newtonian conspiracy. William argues for concrete truths—like sogginess—and Stuart, mid-meditation, wonders if truth is just our neurons doing improv. William challenges listeners to imagine nothing. Stuart wants the Dalai Lama’s take. William just wants anyone’s.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We 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
If you’re listening to this podcast, you've officially run out of things to do with your life.
Now we’ve got your attention, here’s the first of two listener questions, your co-hosts Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt, whose known for his willingness to challenge mainstream perspectives, and William Mankelow who always tries to anchor the discussion with thoughtful reflections, that blend aesthetics with reality. But most of the time, they are both trying their best not to swear.
The first question then comes from Rithipol in Phnom Penh, Cambodia - “When you look back, those creatures considered most intelligent, dominated less intelligent species, and maybe even contributed to their demise and extinctions. Considering this against the upsurge in AI, if we are considering inventing something that could in some ways be more intelligent than ourselves, are we signing our own death warrant?”
From Rithipol’s inquiry, Stuart focuses on questioning fundamental assumptions about AI and intelligence. He challenges whether AI is truly "new" by drawing parallels to genetically modified crops, which had been around for decades before public awareness peaked. He questions the consistency of arguments about intelligence - if humans claim to be the only intelligent species, then other animals causing extinctions can't be attributed with intelligence, but if other species are intelligent, then humans aren't unique.
William takes a balanced perspective on AI as being a transformative but double-edged technology. He acknowledges that fear around AI stems from it being new and unknown, while recognizing its potential as one of the most important developments in human history that will inevitably be used for both good and bad purposes.
The second question is from Fred in St Just, Cornwall, England - “Stuart you say we should do one thing well before moving on to the next. That would be a good thing to do during the ongoing process of human evolution don’t you think? Or would it have held us back with hidden consequences? I’d add to your statement Stuart - we should be the best at the stuff that needs no talent, and build from there".
Here’s what Stuart made of this question that was directed at him.
Stuart believes in doing one thing well before moving to the next, viewing this as essential for avoiding the common mistake of spreading ourselves too thinly across multiple areas. However, he makes an important distinction between individual and collective action - while individuals should focus on mastering one thing at a time, as a species we need to pursue multiple endeavors simultaneously because this diversity drives evolution and progress.
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We 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
There is quite a bit to unpack in this, the latest episode of The People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. Where conversations serve as springboards for deeper discussions that weave through nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice, all with the starting point of a question sent in by a listener.
In today’s episode your co-hosts discuss two such questions, the first coming from Ray, Sauk Centre, Minnesota, USA - “The Biden and Trump administrations worked together as one came to an end and the other started. Should the two parties power share and work together as a better version of future US politics? 77 million voted for Trump and 75 million, I think, voted for Harris. The country is split so is it time to share?”.
Off the back of Ray’s question Stuart comes up with an action: if you went to kindergarten or you went to nursery school. When you think about how your life progressed in school and you ceased to share, and it was about self gain, self gratification, getting grades, and all the rest of it was just me, me, me, me, me .Think if the sharing had continued through your education, and on into your adult life, how would it have looked different?
And William’s action: Realize that we are polarized in our thinking, that what you think is true for yourself, is not necessarily right, it can just be your opinion, not fact. And be mindful of that, and be ready to have your mind changed.
The second question comes from Vinroy, Linstead, Jamaica - “A million Earths could fit into the space taken up by our Sun. With that concept in mind, do our problems, issues, disagreement, fashions etc etc etc, really mean anything?”
For such a BIG question which Vinroy has raised here, your co-hosts come up with two big actions.
Stuart’s action: look at a problem you've got today and set it against the enormity of the universe. Any issues long term, or short term that you may have, your friends, may have , the people around you may have. Does it matter? Is it of anything of significance? Be it disagreements and fashions? They're just like a blip. Does any of this really mean anything?
William’s action: he encourages you to go out there and, and lead a good life, and actually just be kinder to people that are around you. And if you operate from that point of view, and you see that somebody else is actually having struggles themselves. You are only gonna make the world a better place.
During the discussion of this question, William mentions the Hubble Telescope Deep Field, you can find out more about this with the following link: Hubble Telescope Deep Field
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.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: change.org/ImproveTheOxfordshireCountrysideAccessibilityForAllDisabilitiesAndAbilities
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels
We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.
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