Fresh Wind & Green Grass

Lawu, one of the most diverse mountain ecosystems I've ever visited.

Humans on Earth are intrigued by stories because of their capability of reflective thinking. Be a good storyteller, and you will have others’ attention. My grad thesis experiment proved how even adults are affected by a story about animals that we often find in kids’ books. Famous stories across the world are solid proofs of how prone we are to our ego, that fall in love with the idea of how humans have changed the world and the protagonists of the universe. 

So, what if we are not the protagonists of our life stories?

What if scientists are not the ones who are able to debunk fake psychics, like in the Japanese series “Trick” (and remembering James Randi)? What if the captain of a mission space-ships who is looking for lunar water to help the water crisis on Earth is no more capable than a zoologist who understands human evolution after consuming lunar water, like in the Korean series “The Silent Sea”? What if the key to solving multi-layer problems is a multidisciplinary collaboration where no one is the main protagonist?

I am writing this in a hopeless state of mind to see that conservation nowadays feels like a competition rather than cooperation. We, conservationists, are so hopeless, ignoring the fact that the only reason humans exist today is their cooperation, and at the basic level, we are so cooperative. Our level of cooperation is so advanced and distinguished from other big apes, as explained by Frans de Waal in his book “The Age of Empathy”. When I see conservation today, I often find scientists making their own boundaries to connect. They only talk to each other on Twitter, only liking and being involved in conversations about their expertise. It’s like living in a bubble: it’s growing bigger and more fragile to be popped, honestly. We don’t try further to be inclusive and invite experts from another field or try to understand what others think of our communications.

I lost count of having myself laugh or raising eyebrows at how exclusive our conservation communications are. Using jargon that people don’t understand and trying so hard to make conservation science “difficult, complex, something you wouldn’t understand, so just listen to us”. It’s so silly that they have expensive conference travel budget posts but do not hire a good copywriter or graphic designer. Another time, I was pissed to know that some colleagues prioritized choosing where to publish scientific papers when our projects finished over the quality standard and real impact of the scientific workshop that we were working on. It’s just… I’m lost for words. 

The “Bones” series from Fox is the best example where we can learn about how to be a good scientist. In the beginning, Dr. Temperance Brennan, a genius but full-of-oneself forensic anthropologist, was so unempathetic and cold, seeing there is no importance in understanding “soft science” like psychology or other forms of social sciences (this confused me too until I learned that forensic anthropologist is so different to anthropology and categorized as STEM) until she witnessed a mental illness patient had his episode and apologized to the leading psychologist. She also developed a good manner of working with artists and FBI agents, trying to see that there are no superior professions or skills. Dr. Brennan also learned to respect his religious Catholic husband and came to an understanding that having faith and being surrounded by family is what makes humans strong, whereas originally, she despised religions and thought those were disgusting man-made stories. In the series finale (spoiler alert), Dr. Brennan is no longer the competitive scientist but giving the throne of lab chief to her handicapped colleague - best friend. Also, she nominated her colleague, a woman artist, for a very prestigious award that she had never won before, something that she would always be jealous of other women winning because she thought she deserved all the credits in this world. Previously she even always said that this woman fellow was just an artist that happened to work at the museum and not a genius like her. I hated Brennan so much for about 9 seasons and came to love her and really hope that I can be like her, to try so hard to become a better and more inclusive person every day, to be a good mentor for her interns, and not afraid to be back from square one even to reexamine all bones remains when everything goes wrong.  

I hope conservation can be like that, full of multidisciplinary and multinational collaborations and discussions. Although created by a Republican production house, I can say also that “Bones” is the most inclusive criminal series I’ve watched; there are Black women, Muslim Persian immigrants, Hispanic artists, LGBT fellows, and so on. It shows that no matter what our political views are, we can create something that shows others what inclusivity means. So why do we compete when we can cooperate? Many brands like Toyota Daihatsu or Blackpink x various Western musicians have proved that cooperation is a good thing. It’s making me question whether we run conservation truly to make the world better or just to make us looks better?

Seriously, we just need to stop trying so hard to be the main protagonist and provide the space for others to start the conversation. It's not too much to be reminded of the principle of a sustainable ecosystem: diversity.

Earlier this year, I finished a book written by the legendary Yei Theodora Izaki titled “Japanese Folktales”. I couldn’t help but notice that so many Japanese tales teach the reader to forgive and make peace, rather than to seek revenge. This is so contrasted with the ‘katakiuchi’ (blood-revenge) culture back in the Samurai era. Or maybe, because it is so rare yet desired, lots of these tales try to reach people’s hearts to forgive their past enemies. One of the stories is about a daughter who finally made peace with her stepmom, and it was only possible through the mirror that her late mom passed down to her, saying that she would always be with her daughter through the mirror, so she should not worry anything in the future (while actually what the daughter saw was herself, but getting older to be more like her mom).

Speaking of revenge, this month marked the fourth year my mom passed away. She died in a road accident, where according to witnesses, two young bikers hit her and ran away. Last year I watched a Korean drama series titled “Taxi Driver” with the premise of serving justice for people who had been mistreated and faced the dull edge of the law. There was a dialogue; “why is it better to lose 100 killers than to convict 1 wrong person? Where’s the justice for the families of 100 who were murdered?”. God, this dialogue is genius. Korean drama is always successful in highlighting pieces of life and unanswered questions, compared to Western drama, which always provides a clear closure. Just like the latest “The Batman”, where Batman evolved from “the vengeance” into the assistant of justice. When I reflect on my Mom’s case, no one in my family even has the desire to seek the truth - about who killed her really. There was no anger or rage. Despite all the painful cries, none of us tried to ask the nearest convenience store for its CCTV recording, to even run a vehicle registration plate check. 

So what if, I ever meet those two people again in my life? Will I report them to the police or just close my eye and doesn’t leave the world goes blind for not giving an eye for an eye? Is it enough to have them apologize? But really, what does apologize mean when it comes to an old pain? Take a simple case where politician Arteria Dahlan asked a law enforcement staff to speak Indonesian rather than Sundanese in an official meeting. I rarely find myself agreeing with him, but I can understand the statement. Arteria was asked to apologize, and he was okay with it. I found it very, very strange. Being alienated in a meeting or social situation with intense discussion in a language you don’t understand is painful. It’s a form of ostracization that is only the power capable of doing so. How about people that are being alienated? Who’s gonna apologize to them? This is why I never like being a part of the majority, because I see crimes and abuse of power because of the majority's influence, regardless of the identity that makes them a majority - race, religion, or anything else. So should we take revenge on these people by alienating their members when we are the majority, and they aren’t? In my opinion, I would rather move to a society like NTT province, whose hundreds of local languages, but decided to unite with Bahasa Indonesia and forget that society that alienated me. Everyone in NTT, no matter how secluded a community is, is able to speak Bahasa. I won’t waste my time trying to make peace with those abusers or try to blend in. I would forget those people as if they never existed, so they don’t need to apologize because I will rise above the pain on my own.

And that’s maybe what I will do with my Mom’s killers. I will let myself live my life on my own as myself, who is not vengeful, or trying too hard to be better than my enemies. I will seek out a life that I’m happy with, and that’s when my revenge ends. If I meet the two killers on the road, I will pass by as if they've never been born in this world - while I’m living a happy life and enjoying every single moment.