Debs, in Didcot, Oxfordshire, England is the listener who sets the first question for discussion - “You often say we are part of nature and not separate from it. To that end, with balance, it's ok for humans to alter land. So restoring it back to how it was before man even walked the Earth may be a red herring. I’ve heard you say when we are trying to look after a section of land, are we aiming to turn it into what it was, what it is or what we want it to be? So planting trees everywhere, maybe even where trees wouldn’t normally be found, may be destroying rare biodiversity. It may also become a monoculture, with some things dieing out as we are only thinking of the canopy, not the understory and other kinds of habitats. Maybe with the correct management from humans biodiversity could increase more than if we died out and left nature to do its own thing?” Stuart kicks off the chat by pointing out that humans have really done a number on the landscape. Apparently, habitats are all over the place, literally. You get the driftwood from the destruction and a lovely patch of what might eventually be woodland if we keep our fingers crossed. The countryside’s current look? Yeah, that’s courtesy of 10,000 years of human tinkering. And to keep biodiversity afloat, we can't just sit back and do nothing—we need to roll up our sleeves and get involved. Stuart reckons Debs hits the nail on the head about tree planting. Unfortunately, we seem to have mastered the art of doing it all wrong. He then goes on to clarify that rewilding isn’t just a fancy term for sitting on our hands. William chimes in, pointing out the environmental wreckage visible from aerial images. His book, featuring aerial maps of the UK, seems to suggest fields dominate the view—fields and more fields. Stuart raises the important point that, pre-humans, biodiversity was thriving. If we don’t give nature a helping hand, that biodiversity might just wave us goodbye. Finally, Stuart pops the big question: What’s the endgame when we meddle in nature? He reckons we ought to aim for greater biodiversity and, yes, it’s perfectly fine for us to step in. William throws in the idea of thinking long-term about biodiversity. He mentions Capability Brown, the landscape gardener who never actually saw the fruits of his labor mature. But he had a long-term vision, and that’s something we should all aspire to. Ray, Sauk Centre, Minnesota, USA - “Here’s a challenge! What 3 words would you use to describe each other?” Stuart sums up William in three delightful words: Unguided, as if he missed the memo from the wisdom club; Doubtful, because a healthy dose of skepticism is apparently his thing; and Creative, which could be either a compliment or a polite way of saying "a bit out there." On the flip side, William describes Stuart with: Contradictive (yes, he just invented this gem), Focused, like a dog with a bone, and Ridiculous, because why not add a splash of absurdity? If they ever revisit this exercise, they’d probably choose completely different words. Stuart quips to Ray, “Please, spare us from such questions in the future—it was sheer torture!” 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 Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair Fundraiser: justgiving.com/wildmanonwheels 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
