The People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast

The People's Countryside
  • 0.0 (0)
  • NATURE
  • UPDATED BIWEEKLY

This podcast's for anyone wanting to explore the big issues, stretching your thinking in relatable ways. Well known personalities, Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and photographer William Mankelow, who aren't experts, but have opinions, authentic views and no scripts. Join them on meandering conversations about nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Sometimes joined by guests, or discussing listener questions between themselves. Always full of fun anecdotes and a bit of silliness. https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside 

  1. 1D AGO

    Digital Tree Regulation

    If you’re looking for the experts, you may be in the wrong place. This week, Stuart “The Wildman” Mabbutt and William Mankelow dive headfirst into two BIG listener questions’ that ask whether we are putting too much faith in the systems around us. First up, Paula from Norfolk, England asks: “I’m seeing companies are being advised to keep hard copies of records and not just digital. We’re being told to back up and not have too much data in our phones. Has the online bubble burst?  Are we realising it's not perfect, better or quicker after all, and that we shouldn’t constantly be walking around publicly with headphones in?  Have we worked out what social media and online recommendations really are, and that the internet isn’t really regulated and nor will AI be really? Scary when you consider anything on the internet is on there somewhere forever” It is a big question. Has our faith in all things digital started to wobble? Stuart reflects on the quiet return to paper records in some settings, and argues for adaptability. Do not put all your eggs in one digital basket. William adds nuance. Technology can deepen our connection with the natural world, from identifying birds to understanding plants. But the phone should be a servant, not a master. Then the conversation shifts from the digital world to the physical one. Richard from Oxford writes in after witnessing someone deliberately damaging a large tree in a public space, because it cast shade over a private garden. What should you do in that moment? Confront? Report? Walk away? Here is a link to Richard’s question in full: Richard’s question The discussion explores personal responsibility, community action and the psychology behind why a tree can feel like more than just a tree. Sometimes it is not about shade. It is about perception. About control. About what it feels like if somethings looming over us. Stuart shares practical ways to report local environmental damage. William reflects on why even a trimmed tree can still feel “too much” for some people. So this week we ask: Are we over reliant on the digital world? And when we see damage happening in the real one, how should we respond? As always, the questions come from you. The exploration… Well, that is where things get interesting. 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

    23 min

  2. MAR 1

    Truths Don’t Exist

    Thanks very much for joining us for this episode of the People’s Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. We answer listener questions that we’ve not seen before we press record, approaching each one cold.  Well that is usually what happens! The recording of this episode was somehow lost. William is wondering if it is down the back of the sofa, but in any case we’ve had to record it again.  We’re not experts, but we talk freely and honestly, as people often do when faced with important issues unexpectedly. This week, Stuart “The Wildman” Mabbutt and William Mankelow dive headfirst into two BIG listener questions’ that ask whether truth is reality, and how hard you should be punished if you don’t know you’ve broken a law. Here then is the first of the two listener questions for today’s episode which comes from John in the beautiful village town Charlbury, Oxfordshire, England:  “Is truth reality?” William struggles with the concepts of truth and reality, noting that reality is simply what exists, such as the room they are sitting in and the microphones they are speaking into while recording this podcast episode. Stuart defines reality as a set of hidden rules and structures that govern both the physical and non-physical world, independent of personal beliefs or perceived truths. He then goes onto explain that truth is personal interpretation, which can evolve without implying we were wrong. He distinguishes it from reality, noting that reality may exist independently of us, while truth is subjective and tied to our own perception. Onto the second listener question for this episode which comes from Ray in Newmilns, Scotland: “Should we be punished for breaking a law in our own country or in another country if we don’t know the law exists?” William believes that common sense is essential when judging actions, noting that some law violations should be obvious. He emphasizes that the context matters, including the law itself and the perspective of authorities like police officers or magistrates. Stuart believes that with nine billion people, it is impossible to handle every case individually. He acknowledges that while not everyone will break a law, there is a possibility that any person could unknowingly violate one. 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

    13 min

  3. FEB 22

    Belief, Love, And Mortality

    Welcome back to the podcast where you supply the questions, and we bravely refuse to look at them before hitting record. Truly, we like to live on the edge. Each episode, we attempt, with varying degrees of success, to bring an environmental twist to whatever you throw at us. Sometimes it fits beautifully, sometimes it’s like trying to compost a bowling ball. And when the stars align, we even suggest actions you can take. Other times, the actions just sort of tumble out naturally as we talk. Either way, we’ve got two fresh listener questions today, and we’re diving in completely unprepared, just how you like us. Grzegorz from Opole, Poland asks - “Can love exist without God?” Stuart points out that people love turning big questions into neat little either/or boxes, when the real answer is usually “well… it depends.” He muses that some ideas can happily exist without God, others seem to lean on belief, and multiple truths can coexist without exploding. William mentions a friend whose faith genuinely fuels their life. Fair enough. Stuart then asks the classic philosopher’s grenade: “If we don’t even know what love is, how do we know it exists at all?” William offers a warmer take. Love as an acceptance, caring, presence, even being moved by a tree or a dog. Stuart wonders if belief in God shapes belief in love, or vice versa, and why the two get tangled. He asks for five words for love; William gives compassion, caring, kindness, truthfulness, and touch, physical or emotional. Stuart notes that picking five related words is a handy way to pin down slippery concepts. James from Ecclefechan, Scotland sets the next question - “Does “good death” exist?” Stuart kicks things off by saying life is basically one long rehearsal for a “good death.” Not the quick, painless kind people fantasise about, but the kind that reflects how you actually lived. Very cheerful stuff. He also insists nothing is ever truly an object, everything’s just a process pretending to sit still. William adds that death is happening constantly anyway; our cells are quietly retiring one by one because our bodies aren’t great at photocopying themselves. Stuart doubles down: death isn’t a single moment, it’s a whole ongoing saga, whether you believe in reincarnation, cosmic recycling, or just the compost heap. And if you want a meaningful ending, maybe don’t leave all your emotional admin for your final five minutes. William, ever the realist, says death is unavoidable and comes in two flavours: your own, and the moment the last person who remembers you forgets. Some people, your Genghis Khans, your Caesars, stick around in memory. Meanwhile, entire armies of former US presidents have quietly slipped off the mental bookshelf. 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

    13 min

  4. FEB 15

    Exploring Conflict, Choice, Belief, and Bias

    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.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

    22 min

  5. FEB 8

    Targeting Civility

    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.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

    12 min

  6. FEB 1

    Aspirational Memories

    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.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

    18 min

  7. JAN 25

    Faith Faultlines

    Listeners fling questions at us and we heroically read them cold on air. Preparation? Absolutely not. But after 600‑plus episodes, we’ve basically earned a PhD in winging it. Kholoud, Palestinian Refugee living in Long Eaton, England - “Should an individual be considered antisemitic just by disagreeing with the state of Israel?" Stuart bravely points out the shocking revelation that a government and an entire people are not, in fact, the same thing — apparently history and whoever’s currently holding the keys matter. He suggests we try focusing on everyone living safely now rather than reenacting ancient grievances, a truly radical idea. He also notes that disagreeing with the state of Israel isn’t automatically antisemitic, though some insist otherwise, as if criticism itself were a hate crime.  William reminds everyone that tone matters, because apparently that still needs saying.  Stuart then heads into the uncomfortable territory of how past horrors can be misused to justify present violence, stressing that noticing this isn’t bigotry. He highlights that post‑war actions tolerated because of the Holocaust show how thin the line can get. His wild proposal? Apply moral standards consistently.  Meanwhile, William reflects on how antisemitism is so deeply baked into history that unpicking it is like trying to convince Britain it isn’t the centre of the universe. Andrew, Bradford, England - “Why is being religious, to some, a really odd and repugnant thing for others to be?” Stuart recalls working with someone who hated religion with the fiery passion of a man arguing with his own childhood, noting that the issue wasn’t God but his personal baggage. He points out that some non‑religious folks assume every believer is two seconds away from handing them a pamphlet, when often they’re just… talking.  William reminds everyone that not every religious person is on a recruitment drive, though he admits his friend’s recent chat with a very enthusiastic Christian did feel like a one‑man sermon tour.  Stuart counters that not all faith conversations are ambush conversions, offering an example where the reverend listened while the atheist had a meltdown — suggesting the ‘repugnance’ might come from the listener, not the faith.  William adds that spiritual people aren’t automatically unbearable, and sometimes timing and context matter more than belief. He even went to a meditation retreat out of curiosity, not crisis. The grand conclusion? People could try talking like adults.  Stuart wraps up by noting that neither religion nor guns magically cause violence; humans do. Access isn’t the villain — choices are. And if someone’s mere belief in God makes your skin crawl, the problem might not be them. In fact, as Stuart delicately puts it, they may not be the **** — you might 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.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

    37 min

  8. JAN 18

    Growing Up In Digital Silence

    There's a Yank invasion on the People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast, with two American listeners sending in questions for us to discuss.  We’re in the middle of January 2026, yet it feels much the same as 2025. We talked in a previous episode about time and the way calendars give us the sense of a fresh start, but in reality nothing changes unless we do. A new year does not create change on its own, you have to actively do something different rather than waiting for time to change for you. So first let's look at the question from Ray, in Sauk Centre, Minnesota, USA - “What is the difference between adults and children?” Stuart insists kids are basically tiny sages because they haven’t yet collected the full starter pack of adult neuroses. William counters with the groundbreaking revelation that people don’t actually change much—apparently his school reunion was a time‑travel experiment. Stuart then reminds us that adults are just children with bills, flailing confidently into the void. William adds that everyone rushing around pretending to be Very Important is really just their inner toddler begging for a gold star.  Finally, Stuart points out that while we’re all told to “live sustainably,” the folks running the show are too busy maintaining the unsustainable bits to take their own advice. Andrew, from Barrow, Alaska, USA sets the next question - “I saw a young girl around 9 years old, in a waiting room, sat playing a computer game for a solid hour, oblivious to everything around us. The mother stuffing a banana in the girl's mouth so she would eat. Is this a sign the next generation will have the hidden skill of focus, or a sign they will be disconnected?” Stuart wonders if you can be laser‑focused and totally checked‑out at the same time—apparently yes, just hand a child a screen and watch the magic happen. Babies now get phones like they’re upgraded pacifiers, and parents—shockingly—sometimes just want five seconds to breathe.  Stuart overthinks whether a nine‑ish‑year‑old’s screen‑trance is genius or doom, while noting that kids can become so absorbed they forget hunger, danger, and even the existence of gravity.  William adds that screen‑time rules range from “strict monastery” to “digital free‑for‑all,” with dopamine doing its thing.  Both agree extreme focus can be a superpower or a train wreck, but labels don’t explain everything, and maybe we should stop judging parents in public. Teens may be drifting into digital hermit mode, but humanity will probably drag them back eventually—preferably before they walk off a cliff while texting. 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

    21 min
See All (625)

Trailers

About

This podcast's for anyone wanting to explore the big issues, stretching your thinking in relatable ways. Well known personalities, Stuart ‘The Wildman’ Mabbutt and photographer William Mankelow, who aren't experts, but have opinions, authentic views and no scripts. Join them on meandering conversations about nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. Sometimes joined by guests, or discussing listener questions between themselves. Always full of fun anecdotes and a bit of silliness. https://linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside 

Information