Can’t listen? Read the transcript below.
Leif:
We need the compassion and love to act the selfless action to help the world and others. But the other wing to the bird, we have to intelligently apply that love and action because indiscriminate charity causes more problems than one creates. This is why a vast majority of charity money you can see is a mile away thrown straight down the tube. Indiscriminate charity is not the solution. So we have to have the love and compassion, but we also have to have the intelligence.
Gerry:
Welcome to Talking apes. Love, empathy, privilege, those aren’t words you generally hear floating up out of the trenches of conservation battles. But for my next guest, Leif Cox, he believes we have to see beyond the mere mechanics of conservation. For over thirty years, Leif has shared an intimate connection with what some primatologists call the second most intelligent animal on earth, the orangutan. Culture, not just genetics, have shaped who the red ape is, and Leif feels he can only refer to these fellow sentient beings as persons. And by that, he means persons in the most human sense of the word. Leif Cocks is the founder and president of the Orangutan Project, an Australian-based NGO which seeks to protect all three critically endangered orangutan species, and their rapidly disappearing habitats on the islands of Borneo and Sumatra. For Leif, his devotion to orangutans and the conservation of their rainforest home is one in the same, but his pursuit of solutions is equal passion and pragmatism. In Leif’s own words, simplistic solutions like banning palm oil are great for marketing and fundraising, but they don’t really work in the real world. On this Talking Apes, we’ll explore the complexity and nuance of saving a species and an ecosystem on which we all depend.
Hi, I’m Gerry Ellis and this is Talking apes where we explore the world of apes and primates with experts, conservationists, and passionate primate lovers from around the world. Talking Apes is a podcast that gets to the very heart of what’s happening with and to apes like us. The Talking Apes podcast is made possible by generous support from listeners like you to non-profit GLOBIO, at GlOBIO.org.
Gerry:
Well, I think I should say good morning Leif, and welcome to Talking Apes. Since we are half a world away from one another, you’re in Perth, Australia, is that correct?
Leif:
Yep, that’s that’s correct, and in lockdown here. Yeah, so trying to manage the projects and our outcomes from my home office but hopefully won’t be too long until we’re back out in the field.
Gerry:
Well let’s see. So you’re about half a day a ahead of us, so when you save the planet, you will know a half a day ahead of us. Is that right? <laugh> So you’ll be able to get in touch with us and let us know we’re okay <laugh>. Actually, that is kind of the direction of this episode of Talking Apes that I’d like to head. I’d like to talk about solutions to some of the problems that we face. And I think it’s interesting your focus is on orangutans because they connect to ecosystems and networks that really do, I think, emblematically, shine a light on how we have to take care of this planet in general. And part of the reason that I was excited to talk to you is you have thirty, maybe over thirty years experience, not only with orangutans, but seeing this incredible animal from sort of, two sides of human experience. I mean you initially were a zookeeper working with orangutans, so you saw how people react to species in that context. And then over the course of your life you’ve evolved into a conservationist and activist, I guess you would say and passionate, I don’t know if humanist is the right word, a passionate speceiest. I think because you seem to be passionate about humans and other species with equal excitement and verve. But when we knew we were gonna have you on, there was something I’d read many, many years ago, I read your book ‘Orangutans: A Battle for Survival’. And what’s interesting is over the past twenty years since that book was published, I feel like it’s become not a battle of orangutans for survival, but a battle for all of our survival. Can you just talk about orangutans and their place in the environment and how that is so emblematic of a planet that we’re trying to save.
Leif:
The main thing to understand is we’re all connected, and the old paradigms of our tribal mind of us against them and short term thinking are just destroying us. We have to outgrow that natural mind, which fixes us into this destructive, exploitative way of interacting with the world. And so saving the orangutans and their rainforest environment is destroying the planet, is destroying local economies. And so it’s no longer this idea about do we sacrifice some economic gain to help this endangered species, or the idea of altruism, we sacrifice some for others. In the long term It’s not wildlife versus people or environment versus economy, it’s about getting a win-win situation for every species on the planet. And so orangutans and the other megafauna which share our planet, they’re the first ones which are gonna tip off the edge, because they require the largest area to support minimum sustainable populations. And so one of the things we have to do to get us through this extinction crisis and into a planet that’s actually sustainable long term, we have to make sure during this most critical period of human history, the next ten years, the most critical period in human history, we have to particularly make sure that these populations of megafauna can get through this and out the other side. Because there’s so much key to the biodiversity, carbon storage and functioning of these ecosystems that is gonna be required for future human populations to survive in the long term.
Gerry:
That’s interesting that you should say ten years because it was actually about ten years ago, or a bit over that, that I listened to a conversation or a talk that Jane Goodall was doing and she thought within the next ten years if we didn’t change something, that great apes on this planet would be nearly extinct. And yet here we are ten years later and there are still forests and there are still apes. And so, while those of us who are out in that environment and intimate with it would say, yeah, things are stressed and are going in the wrong direction, I think for the average person they would say, well wait a second, there’s still tropical rainforest on this planet. There’s still great apes on this planet, so aren’t you guys kind of ringing alarm bells that aren’t necessary to ring at this point?
Leif:
Sure, sure. And look, when Jane said that ten years ago, we weren’t sitting on our hands for the last ten years. A considerable effort by a hell of a number of people have meant that we’re still up the creek without a paddle, but we’re still not over the waterfall yet. And that’s only been done by a tremendous amount of effort by many people. So the prediction would be right if we did nothing. But luckily, we have done something, not enough yet. Now the reason why I say the next ten years is the most important period in human history is because when you talk to a climate scientist, they say this ten years decide the future of the planet. They’re not saying after ten years suddenly the world’s gonna explode <laugh>, right? But what we’re seeing is if we don’t change things now, the ecosystems will spiral out of into oblivion, and so you get this slow progression into a disastrous future blow. For example, let’s say, and I’ll take the rainforest for us as a particular example, and this is why we are saying the same ten years because it’s interconnected. And the example is if you reduce the rainforest, you reduce the amount of rain, then the rainforest becomes less productive so it could support less biodiversity and it stores less carbon. There’s more droughts, more fires, which reduces more rainforest. This creates climate change, which means more El Nino, the rare annual changes have become more frequent again providing more droughts, more dry area and again destroys more rainforest which destroys more biodiversity. The orangutans go extinct, the rainforest reduces further. So you get these feedback loops which then spirals and you can’t stop it anymore. And climate change is gonna do the same thing. And this is why this is so important. We’re not saying in ten years time if we do nothing -which we’re not gonna do, we’re gonna do something- there’s gonna be no orangutans. But maybe for example that those populations and those ecosystems are no longer self sustainable, so, in the long term they will go extinct. There’s not the right type, shape or size of rainforest, the populations aren’t large enough. So they eventually just fall into extinction. And that interaction with the global environment of climate change will actually just help that acceleration. And so the interacting of climate change, local environment and endangered species all work together to spiral us into extinction. So we have both the obligation and the privilege, living in a most important time in human history, to basically get off the bus now and make it count. And that’s a challenge for this generation. Future generations may be given a basket case of an economy and a basket case of an environment, which they won’t be able to recover from. We can turn it around and it’s our generation which has the obligation to do that.
Gerry:
Well there’s a couple of things you said there that are really interesting. One is privilege. That’s an interesting word to use in this. I don’t think people think about that, about this. I think they think that it is a dire situation and an obligation. But to think of it as a privilege is maybe an interesting way to think about this opportunity to make a better world, or to make a world less bad <laugh>.
Leif:
It is a privilege to live in this time from the perspective that selfless work for other conscious living beings in the world is the most beneficial thing for our own selves, it’s the win-win situation. All these things are win-win situations. So if you become less selfish and you’re working diligently for the cause and help of others and pitching the largest ideal that you can aspire to, you will live a wonderful beautiful life. And so therefore its privilege. People get this idea because we’re sold this kind of neo-conservative capitalism which has just turned us into miserable, horrible people, thinking that material wealth and competition is the key to happiness. And of course all evidence says this is actually not true. It’s selfless love and work for the others which makes us happy. So it’s a win-win situation, because I know often people come to me and say, Oh look, we’re so admired of you because you’ve sacrificed your life and everything, all your time to help the orangutans and others. Are you crazy? <laugh> To have that wonderful peace of mind when your ego is sublimated and where it virtually disappears to concern and love for others is wonderful, to give that up for short term name, fame, power and wealth. It just seems crazy. And the people who do that are the great sacrifices. So again, I just think we’ve just been sold a pup I guess. And where we find happiness is actually in the wrong places.
Gerry:
The other thing you mentioned just a second ago was both the environment and economics. And I think that’s also something that’s important to keep in mind with this, that those two things are tied together. We’ve, over the course of the years that you have been working in conservation and looking at orangutans, I think we’ve evolved from thinking those things are two very separate items to now realising that they’re connected. Could you talk about that a little bit.
Leif:
Exactly. A good economy and a good environment are the same decision making. So a good economist will protect the environment and you will say, well why do we destroy the environment for economic gain? Well it is short term economics. What they do is they compressed profits from the many to the few, from the long term to the short term. So it’s about short-term profit, and the only reason that they’re profitable is because they can pass a true cost of adaption onto the powerless, the future generations. Number one endangered species environment are local people and the poor people. So it is an exploitative model which is very good at making a few people very rich. But we want an economy which is gonna be prosperous and enrich everybody. We have to bring in long term economics. Ultimately I put this down to our human evolution, back at the agriculture revolution where we destroyed feminine power. Because before we had that balance between male thinking, which is short term, get it done quickly and win win lose, and female power is about long term, It’s about are we all okay by the group dynamics. And because we basically kicked all the women outta the, I guess the power structure of deciding what we do, we have a lot of men who are very much interested in short term solutions, win lose and competing against the other men in the other companies. And they just simply are not evolved to have the insight to think that the better long term solution for their children, their community, and the globe, lies in changing the paradigm of how we approach the world.
Gerry:
How does that resonate when you’re out on the road talking about these issues when you push the sort of a feminine agenda to a more balanced thinking and approach?
Leif:
Well it’s important because we have to address the roots of the problem, and we’re very good as a species at addressing things which is external and short term. So for example, if let’s say North Korea was the cause of climate change, we would’ve solved it in two years time <laugh>. We know who you are, we know where you live and you’re not us. We’re really bad at solving problems that we are creating, and that’s where climate change and environmental conservation is, where all the struggles are. And so we need to reform ourselves to reform the world. So that discussion I guess has to happen. But on the flip side of that, the answer to the other half of your question is because conservation environmentalism is intuitively understood by the feminine mind a lot easier because it’s group thinking, it’s long term thinking. So if I always used to kid, there’s some wonderful men that support us and they’re fantastic, but I used to kid a few years ago, if I walked in the room and gave a talk and it’s full of men, I walk out because I ain’t gonna get anywhere <laugh>. But it’s full of women, I go, all right, fine, okay, they’re gonna understand what I’m saying. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking masculinity or masculine thinking, what we need is a balance, we’ve evolved. It’s a bit like having the Senate and the lower house, these two powers in the tribe meant that we made ultimately good decisions because these two ways of thinking balanced out to make the appropriate decision for the tribe. After the agricultural revolution we just lost that balance in which we need to put in place in order to ensure that we have a sustainable future for our children.
Gerry:
I’m only smiling because as I mentioned to you before we jumped into the podcast, I lived for a few years in Australia. I spent a fair bit of that time in places like the Northern Territory and Outback Queensland. And that feminine approach would’ve had an interesting conversation in a lot of pubs in that part of Australia <laugh> because there was very, very much an outback mentality there that was very different than you’re talking about.
I’m interested in your thoughts on orangutans as an apex species in this environment of Borneo and Sumatra and how they represent saving this landscape. I know that a lot of the work of the Orangutan Project is in Sumatra and so if you wanna wanna base it around there, that’s fine too, but how is saving this species, and people call them flagship species or apex species or the charismatic mega vertebrate or whatever the phrase might be. But for those who don’t fully understand how that works in an environment system or a natural system, maybe talk about that.
Leif:
I prefer the term umbrella species. And so the idea is, let’s say if I go out and say, look, I’m gonna save the orangutans as a large species that has to have a large area to survive in sustainable populations. All the millions of other species individuals will come along for the free ride. You don’t have to have the save the monkey project or save the gibbon project or save the bat. They’ll all come along for the free ride under the umbrella of orangutan conservation. So you can choose one charismatic species and of course to help those is extremely important. But all the rest will come along under the free ride, including indigenous human populations who rely on the environmental services and the ecosystem for their own economic prosperity. What we actually found actually is that a few species were falling out from this umbrella of orangutang conservation, the elephant and the tiger. So we actually started the International Tiger Project, and International Elephant Project to address the particular human elephant conflict problems. We’re experiencing criminal syndicates poaching tigers and elephants, therefore we bring them under the umbrella of our conservation program. And as I mentioned before this is all a win-win situation. So saving orangutans isn’t putting orangutans before people, or putting orangutans before a small reptile that lives in the forest. It’s about creating a framework which benefits all, and we’ve just chosen the orangutans as the most intelligent way to communicate and express our love for all living beings through intelligent action to achieve a sustainable future for us all.
Gerry:
So you used that word intelligent a couple times right then, talk a little bit about the intelligence of an orangutan. I mean you’ve spent all this time with them in close proximity and looking at them further afield. Where do you see the orangutan in terms of all of the great apes, including ourselves, and where does it fit into that puzzle?
Leif:
Well, theres two things. If you’re talking about just measuring intelligence in human terms, only next to us, they are the most intelligent species that share our planet. They’re lot smarter than gorillas and chimpanzees and bonobos. Anybody who’s worked closely, hands on with that species will tell you. You can go to a great ape keeper in American zoo and they’re gonna laugh at you if say anything but orangutan. A lot of people because they’re much more human-like, and actually because they’re the closest ancestors may say the chimpanzee, but no orangutans are the most intelligent species that share our planet. But the other aspect to us is we always measure intelligence by our own standards and values. And we do this culturally amongst human populations measuring intelligence, there’s huge cultural biases. Having a large brain is the most costly thing to have in terms of energy while you are evolving. So for example, a huge amount of our daily calorie intake goes and supports our large brain. And so if you’re, let’s say a large bodied live animal in the rainforest, developing intelligence and a larger brain that’s required to support their intelligence, without use it basically makes you vulnerable to extinction, because you increase your calorie requirement but there’s no extra benefit. You’re not increasing calories from that because it’s of no use. So you’re not suddenly gonna find the orangutan who starts developing human like intelligence, it would go extinct. That’s a dumb thing to do <laugh>. What it does is develop intelligence which is most adapted to its environment both genetically and culturally, because it’s huge (culture). The large intelligent animals, their brain is basically programmed to culture rather than programmed by instinct like less intelligent animals. And so for example at orangutans, their temporal spatial map, their ability to remember where food is both in time and space of a life distance at exceeds human capacity enormously. And so from orangutans point of view from their lifestyle, humans are dumb as all hell <laugh>. They can’t understand why we survive when we’re so stupid. And you see for example, chimps have their own sets of intelligence, which is quite unique to them and in their way far more superior. And you can go on YouTube now and see chimpanzees in Japan that can out do number puzzles maybe ten times faster than a human can. So from the chimp’s perspective, we’re quite stupid as well.
Gerry:
I mean the word orangutan is derived from person of the forest or sometimes people say old man of the forest or something. And you’ve been quite outspoken regarding the sort of personage quality of this sentient being. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, you were involved with the case in Argentina, was that right?
Leif:
Yeah, I was expert witness in the court case in Argentina to give an orangutan human rights and free it from captivity.
Gerry:
Let’s talk a little bit about that because you mentioned another word, culture, and I don’t think people generally think, I mean culture seems to be a human quality.
Leif:
We often focus on culture now because human beings have been trying over many years to find out why we are so unique and great. Unfortunately we just gotta get over ourselves. We’re not that unique and we’re not that great <laugh>, we’ve been relatively successful at being exploitative, which will eventually fall down if we don’t overcome our biology. So eventually in a way we have the intelligence of a rat plague or mice plague. Sure there’s some short term gains from what you’re doing, but in the end you’re not gonna be that successful. So we have to outgrow our biology <laugh>. But we are focused on culture because man was a tool user and that made us so special, of course we find all sort of animals use tools including otters and monkeys and orangutans themselves. Then we saw, oh well we have culture and that’s what makes us unique and special. But what we’ve found is animals such orangutans, chimpanzees and elephants have culture, because there’s actually two ways to adapt to the environment. One is by natural selection and that’s for example, let’s say you a tiger and you have lots of offspring, all genetically a little bit different over your lifetime, and then nature will select which one of the offspring is most suited for the ever changing environment. That’s natural selection as we know it. Intelligent species said actually we’ve got a better way of doing this, we’re gonna have fewer babies, they’re gonna be born with vacant brains, not much instinct. I’m gonna have long maternal periods of learning, which is gonna program the culture. And this makes each species uniquely adapted to ever changing environment far more responsive than natural selection alone. So it’s extremely successful model. So intelligence, large brain, long maternal learning periods. And so this is how orangutans and elephants and other intelligent species adapt to the environment. Only problem is this really only can happen when you have no natural predator. Once you introduce a natural predator, the intelligent species spiral to extinction fairly quickly because they’re investing heavily in very few offspring rather than investing very little in many offspring which is genetically diverse. So orangutans have a unique and beautiful culture which they pass on from generation to generation. And I myself working with many orangutans, you even see the cultural variations and family variations between family lines, how they approach things and how they do things differently. And you see populations with extremely different cultures which develop to adapt to every unique environment, the same as we do.
Gerry:
Do you have some examples of that? I’m curious what kinds of things you have seen that you would classify as cultural adaptation in orangutans.
Leif:
Well, we see for example different tool use in different populations, and they’re using the tools differently. And so they have a cultural way of using tools. They also have a cultural way of raising offspring, which can be quite different between groups, similarly humans are in the same situation roughly. It’s not so extreme as in orangutans because we had this mixed tribal group whereas orangutans basically come almost as single mothers within a rainforest. But predominantly cultures passed down through the female line raising the offspring, and in developing, and natural selection occurs down the male line. The males go off and do reckless behavior, especially the young who have a high death rate, and the ones who survive pass their genes to the the next generation. Where let’s say even with human females, this is why you don’t send women to war, is because you start knocking off your women, which is determine your reproductive rate, your population will go extinct pretty quick. So it’s always natural to protect the women and children. Young men go off and have reckless behavior and put in danger because you’ve got men for natural selection, women for culture, and this is actually more extreme in orangutans. So you’ve got your male orangutan going off to fight and get into mischief and die at the great rate, but that’s fine because you only want the best to survive to pass their genes and generation. But you need every female to survive and spend the time and effort passing on that culture from generation to generation. And it’s calculated that we can lose one percent of the females in a population, and it will spiral into extinction, whereas we can lose fifty percent of the males in a population and the population is actually very healthy. So you see this cultural difference and biases between the sexes is important.
Gerry:
Let’s turn that then to survival, and let’s talk a little bit about the conservation of this habitat and these forests and of course the orangutan. Maybe outline the key issues here for those who don’t know. I mean, palm oil is the one that everybody always hears about, that’s the red flag flying up there, but I think it’s a little more complex than that and maybe you could just touch on what are those key issues and then I’d like to start talking about solutions. Every morning we get up and we can find somewhere that we’re being told that it’s all hell in a handbasket. And as Meg said to me earlier today, there’s a dozen headlines that will tell you how much is being lost and how many of this species and you can just fill in the species. So let’s talk briefly about what the pressures are and what they’re facing and then maybe really focus on the solutions.
Leif:
Yeah, so in a broader context, we need two things and I call it two wings of the bird. We need the compassion and love to act the selfless action to help the world and others, but the other wing to the bird, we have to intelligently apply that love and action because indiscriminate charity causes more problems. This is why a vast majority of charity money you can see is a mile away thrown straight down the tube, indiscriminate charity is not the solution. So we have to have the love and compassion, but we also have to have the intelligence. Now, the classic example, the first thing people think about when we’re talking about orangutan conservation, is palm oil. The reason being is you see a rainforest, you come back next year, now its a palm oil plantation, you go, well, okay, the real issue is palm oil. So if we ban palm oil, have sustainable palm oil, which is not true, you can’t have sustainable palm oil, but let’s pretend there’s less destructive palm oil, then suddenly we will save the forest. But it’s actually not true, because it’s not really understanding what’s happening. It’s not intelligently seeing the situation. The rainforest can be destroyed solely for the value of the trees alone, cause the trees are worth money. Your mother lied to you when she said money doesn’t grow on trees. It does. It’s very valuable. And so stopping palm oil will not stop the trees from disappearing. But business men are pretty intelligent. Once they have to destroy the trees and got money in their pockets, they’ll plant a short term crop for the most short term profit and that can exploit the environment path, to reduce cost of production or power, so you reach them as quickly as possible. Now if you came along and said, look, you can’t plant palm oil, they all think, well I can plant sugar palm, I can plant rubber, I can plant pulp paper, I have other options. So why would I leave profit sitting there when I have other options. So unless you address all those options, you’re not going to stop the deforestation, not one tree being sold. So you can have anti palm oil campaign and when you’re successful in ten years time, if there’s any rainforest, you can start the anti rubber campaign then the anti- and go on. By that time we are dead and the world has spiraled into extinction. So if this is not an intelligent way to approach the problem, the intelligent way to approach it is to address the particular drive, not addressing particular companies or particular products, but looking at each ecosystem, diagnosing the disease and as a doctor looks at each patient, looks at each disease and prescribes the right medicine, the right dosage, and solving the problem, that’s intelligent conservation. Broad picture, simplistic solutions about the other being a problem are fantastic for marketing, and that’s why people want to do it because it’s a great way to raise money and it’s good marketing that connects to people. And that’s why politicians want to say, well it’s this country or this people or this group which is a problem, it’s not us <laugh> It’s them, and everyone gets on board real quickly. Look, we finally get it! It was the Jews which were destroying the German economy or the Mexicans or whatever, because our human brain is very geared up to going, oh, a strong man’s gonna save us, and a strong man is identifying the external enemy with the short term solution, we’re on board. And it’s actually worked for evolution, that’s saved our asses in our evolution on the Savannah and the rainforest for generations, but’s pretty useless in the modern environment. And so we have to go beyond the instinctive way of dealing with things and identifying problems to address them more intelligently. And unfortunately we haven’t got time to evolve. We’re basically hunters and gatherers misaligned to live in a post-industrial revolution environment. And so we haven’t had time to adapt. So we have to forgive ourselves thats why we make these stupid decisions and why we continue to make the stupid decisions. But for our own survival, it’s imperative that we at least get out of this in the next ten years and start intelligently applying solutions in the world.
Gerry:
As you look at not only the situation with orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra, but just even globally, it seems like we’re approaching these problems with old brains, old linear thinking, and yet we have to have a more holistic, circular, if you will, thinking approach to solving these solutions. Where are those stars of hope that we navigate by, how do we this? In your mind, how do you do it? And maybe you could even relate it to a little bit of what you were talking about using this passion and love on one wing and intelligence on the other wing. How are you doing that? How is the project doing that in Sumatra as an Example?
Leif:
Yeah, no, it’s a very good question and the answer is in your question. It’s love, because we are not very good at intelligently applying our ourselves to these sorts of problems. We’re just not evolved to do that. But there is an intelligence and love and understanding within love, which cannot be easily understood. So there’s only one thing we need to do to solve the problems, is to expand our love and consideration to all living beings on the planet. Up to third level warming is caused from the meat industry and overfishing, cruelty to other living beings. If we took up a plant based diet and we stop hurting and exploiting others for the pleasure of the taste, we’ll suddenly actually have a lot of global warming under control. If we care and love about our children and want to create a better planet, we’ll stop having short-term exploitative subsidies for fossil fuels, for a few greedy people, to allow future generations have prosperity. If we save the rainforest with the indigenous communities, indigenous wildlife for their own sake, we will mitigate another twenty to thirty percent of global warming and start rewilding the planet. So if we just simply apply love and compassion, which is a win-win situation because if you love and have compassion to others, you become happy yourself. So this is not sacrifice at all as I’m trying to indicate. So my answer to how we overcome the inherent problem with the way human thinking occurs, is to develop a heart and love, and those solutions will become more easy and more apparent and more effective.
Gerry:
I mean it almost sounds like the title to your book, ‘Finding our Humanity.’
Leif:
Well exactly, because all my books are obviously autobiographical in a way, but they’re also telling a different story. And I guess you can categorize in some way, ‘Finding our Humanity’ is a autobiographical, spiritual journey. And the reason why I wrote that compared to the other books is the understanding that originally thinking as a scientist coming from a scientific background is lack of knowledge and application and skills or whatever is the problem and the solution, when it’s not, it’s empathy <laugh>. Lack of empathy, lack of connectedness, inertia, fear, all these things are actually the real things which are stopping us from solving the problem. And so in my small way of connecting with people and trying to solve the problem, I address the real issues which are stopping us from getting there. It’s my duty to do the best I can to save the orangutans, the other biodiversity, and do my part to mitigate climate change.
Gerry:
How did orangutans connect you to your own humanity?
Leif:
One of the interesting things is, and the wonderful thing that a lot of people experience when I take them on eco tours into the jungle to meet the orangutans, is seeing the humanity where you least expect it, it’s a wonderful experience. And for me personally, starting to work with orangutans and understanding that they’re intelligent persons is a wonderful experience which expands your consciousness to some extent. You go suddenly, oh, actually this consciousness and this expression of love and universe is far more expansive. And that in itself is a wonderful experience. But in addition to that, I’ve found in the orangutan’s eyes a more noble form of humanity. And the example I give is we’ve killed over a million orangutans, macheted them, burning ’em alive, shooting their eyes out in most horrific way. And although they’re seven to ten times stronger than human being, there’s not one recorded case in a sanctuary or zoo or a wild orangutan ever killing a human being, even though the male’s got teeth like tigers, canines like tigers, they don’t seem to have that kill switch. whereas human beings in the right environment.. And this is why you have war crimes, because you basically have these male hunting parties for evolution, that are designed to switch off and murder and pillage as part of their survival strategy. And so we have this kill switch we can switch off and this is why, you know, go to any war situation, there’s always war crimes because you get this tribal hunting party mentality that comes into place. And chimpanzees have the same thing, chimpanzees can rip off the genitals and faces of their foes and it’s all fun and games. orangutans don’t seem to have that. They just don’t seem to have the ability. So they may fight for resources and et cetera, et cetera, but they never do anything. Simply trying to destroy, they don’t intentionally hurt another because they don’t seem to be able to disconnect their humanity from others such as we can.
Gerry:
The word humanity. I know what you mean by using it and I think I know what most of us mean when we use it. Do we need to find another way to express that, by using humanity, are we making a mistake? Are we saying to people, if we can show you the humanity there, the humanness there, we’re saving their value, their valuable. If we can’t, they don’t have a value just intrinsically as themselves.
Leif:
No, I understand what you’re saying. It’s just not how I’m using the term and I’m trying to use the term in which the audience most understands. So I’m talking in the language of the culture at the right time. So I’m not trying to culturally construct a new way of talking. That’s not my role, it’s others who may want to do that. My role is to talk in a language which the audience can understand. And so that’s why I use humanity in that context. But I agree with you that there’s something deeper because often the argument is, oh, we should protect orangutans and chimpanzees because they share ninety seven or ninety nine percent of genes with us. Who gives a crap? But that’s where our tribal brain gets to, <laugh> the us and them. The more genetically similar to us, the more likely we are gonna protect you. This is how the human brain works. But the reality is that’s not the reason we protect others. And the reason we protect others is because they suffer and they have intrinsic value as persons, and there is personhood beyond the human species. To recognise that is I’m suggesting, finding humanity, our own humanity as in humane, but also finding how we describe humanity beyond the human species. And we have to do that. That’s part of it. I described how we exploit animals which is destroying our planet and how we destroy other humans which is destroying our planet. We have to find our humanity and it’s beyond the human species in order to survive.
Gerry:
When you do your eco tours and you take people in and somebody has never seen in orangutan before, I mean obviously they’ve seen pictures or something and they’re motivated to go with you to see them. What are the first reactions that you notice out of people when they first encounter orangutans?
Leif:
Well, there’s a few things that happen on the eco tours. One is, they’re out of their comfort zone and that actually creates a unique opportunity where they’re open to new experiences. So you get the serendipity. The second thing is the back to the rainforest, which is kind of back to home, and there’s a sense of oneness and connectedness, which can be surprising to many people. The third aspect is beauty. I mean, seeing an orangutan in the zoo, you see an ugly caricature of these magnificent persons. That’s like seeing people in prison and going, that’s how people act and that’s how they associate with each other. No. That’s how they react when they’re taken outta the environment and put in confinement. But when you see an orangutan in it’s natural environment free, there’s this wonderful beauty and this wonderful connection. And then I do these talks every night, which connects people at a deeper level, there’s a scientific journey, there’s a spiritual journey and that sort of stuff. And so what people get at the end of it is a beautiful connection with others through the orangutan, but beyond humanity. And so again, it’s a win-win situation and this is wonderful thing. So two things that happen is, well, we make money to help save the orangutans, we connect people at a deeper level and we help them, and then they become more selfless and happier and they give more. And so you get this wonderful continuation of the win-win experience and that’s what it’s all about. And part of the reason I’m writing ‘Finding our Humanity’ is in that context. When I’m talking to an audience, I’m not there as some sort of self help guru, <laugh>, selling them some get rich quick scheme, I’m not there to exploit them to get money to save my precious orangutans, its a win-win solution. If I can make people happier, more loving and more selfless and all those things are the same thing, interconnected, then they’re benefited. And that expression of love and selflessness then hopefully reflects back into saving the planet, including the orangutans. So these are all win-win solutions, if we have the ability to expand our consciousness in mind beyond a tribal paradigm and be able to see it.
Gerry:
I guess that leads me to one last question and that is one which I know you’ve heard before, but I guess I’m asking it in a couple of different contexts. One is the journey that you just took us on as being those folks who went and saw in orangutan for the first time. And the other is from the context of being one of eight billion people on this planet. Some would say that if orangutans disappeared- I live in Iceland- if they disappeared tomorrow, that’s where I’m going with this question, what difference does it make and why should I care? And if I do care, what is it that I do on a daily basis as an individual? Or is it impossible for an individual to have that impact? I mean, you are an individual, you have made an enormous impact in the lives of the orangutans, of the biodiversity of the forest general. So you’re living proof that an individual can make a difference, but it hasn’t been a road that you’ve taken on your own. So let’s back up to the original part of the question.
Leif:
Yeah, yeah, no that’s a great question. I will say we have to reform ourselves to reform the world. So we find that love and beauty within ourselves and we can only find it within ourselves. It may be difficult to find happiness within ourselves, but impossible to find outside. We find that love and compassion, we will express that naturally. So you want to help the world, you’ve got this love, you just gotta get it out. You just gotta intelligently express it somehow. So that’s where the intelligent action comes into place. But there’s also this flip side, you can kind of actually fake it to you make it, if people go out and act selflessly, they actually become happier. It’s a bit like we know that if you smile, just fake it for a while, you actually become happier <laugh>. It is kind of fake it to make it kind of thing. So why are you gonna help? Well you’re gonna help to help yourself, it’s a win-win situation, you will become happier and more prosperous and you will help others. The next part is look, yeah, I think we’ve been sold this line basically from the people who are getting rich quick at this point of planet, with, sync globally, act locally, change the way you live your lifestyle and then the planet will be changed, act as an individual. And I’m not saying going palm oil free and acting with integrity as an individual isn’t important. It is important for your own spiritual growth, but are you gonna change the world? No, right. Humans can only succeed and only reason we have been successful is we can collectivize and we are the best collectivizing species on the planet. The example is, if you want to earn a little bit of money, get yourself a job. You’re never gonna be rich but you’re gonna be okay. If you wanna earn a lot of money, collectivize capital into a company and you have the capacity. Now it’s the same with conservation. As an individual, I can go join a hippie commune and go organic and veggie and that sort of stuff and say, hey, I’m not destroying the planet, I’m wonderful, it’s all you buggers. That’s just ego. And it’s not about me, it’s not about my skill. My only skill is the ability to collectivise. I surround myself with wonderful people who are far more intelligent than myself, and with wonderful commitment and that’s why there’s success. Nothing to do with me other than my ability to collectivise, supplement my ego to the greater cause and work well with others. And you see with conservationists all the time because, we don’t reform ourselves while we’re trying to reform the world. And you see so many times, conservationists, they’re trying to save the planet, but they are secretly after name, reputation, money, power. And they end up fighting against all the other NGOs and all the other people. And it’s like honestly, people come into conservation and they go, I thought it was all a bunch of beautiful people singing kumbaya working together, and actually its all fighting each other and backstabbing each other, yeah, that’s what’s happening. And of course the reality is though I love them all and I can see the pain in their hearts and I feel compassion for them. I just have to work around them and set an example of a sense of selfless love, and you become happy and you can work together with others for an ultimate course. So that’s kind of why there’s success, collectivization and expression of selfless love intelligently through the world.
Gerry:
I had a friend who once- she had been many years in the conservation business and she said if we could just get people to leave their logos and egos at the door, we might get something done.
Leif:
Yeah, I know. I often do these talks and I meet people who say, oh you know, must be so proud of the Orangutan Project, the International Elephant Project and all you’ve done. I don’t give a shit/damn about these things. Honestly. <laugh> actually legal fictions, they don’t really exist. It’s like countries <laugh> or companies, they don’t exist. They’re just fictions. They’re just vehicles that I’m using, to affect a meaningful change to what is real, the consciousness and expression of living beings and compassion for the suffering that they’re feeling. It’s just a means to an end. But what happens is it’s our tribal mind that it doesn’t make sense to. So a lot of people go, oh, the orangutan project, that’s my tribe now. So when the orangutan fund down the road is competing, no, that’s a real enemy, it’s not people destroying the forest. The orangutan fund is gonna get our donors and money and the grant money, so they spend all their focus on that, and that that’s a tribal brain just switching in and identifying with the tribe and that sense of connectedness in a small tribal way. But what I’m positing is we have to expand, go beyond the tribal mind. That’s why I’m always pretty keen to always tell my staff and volunteers to get ’em over with the shock. I don’t care about the orangutan project. My greatest wish in the world is I will close it because it’s no longer required. It’s a useless organization because the orangutans are all safe living in viable populations and a secure habitat. Let’s get rid of this thing called the orangutan project and please help me become unemployed.
Gerry:
Yeah, it’s funny because I once was talking to somebody at one of the very large global NGOs and I said, so what is your exit strategy? And they looked at me like I had three heads <laugh>. What do you mean exit strategy? I said, Well don’t you have a plan to succeed and then you’re out of business. And it’s just like they were stunned with the concept, how can we ever be outta business? They just accept they are.
Leif:
Well, it’s one of those psychological things below the subconscious. Not saying that they’re consciously aware of this. Remember Superman’s best friend is Lex Luther <laugh>. The reason is from a psychological perspective, you can’t be a superhero without a super villain. This is why conservationists spend more time fighting each other than companies. So if I wanna save the world and be the hero, I need someone destroying the world. So I need them, I’m in a symbiotic relationship with them, but the guy who also wants to save the world, I’m in a competition with them. So I’ve gotta get rid of that guy because I’m the one saving the world. And so you actually find, and this is why you often get destructive businesses and these big NGOs, they actually have a very good partnership. Well you destroy the planet and we save it. It’s kind of working out really well for both of us here. And they’re all, we’re gonna get rid of these other NGOs, which are competing with us and all’s gonna be really fantastic.
Yeah, so this is it, and I’m not saying they’re consciously aware of this, but that’s unfortunately the thing. And so when someone says, actually we’ve gotta get out of that, it takes, it’s gonna take a little bit of time, until that percolates. And the problem is we can’t criticize the people who are in that paradigm, because if we get criticized we get hurt and we just seek to strengthen our current position. And especially if we are in this little column, we’re all in little cults. If we are in this cult, all our friends and all our colleagues say, yeah, we are right, it’s Zach. No, he’s stupid to say that. You know what I mean? Because we’re all in these kind of little cults because in our evolution It’s been more important to agree and keep group cohesion than being right. That’s how our brain thinks. So we’re gonna believe all sorts of stupid things if that’s what the tribal narrative tells us to do. And so the only way we can do that is provide the information without criticism and provide a loving environment for people to change. Does that make sense? In a safe way, this is why you don’t find the Orangutan Project criticizing other NGOs and people. It because we love them, they’re not outside of our field of compassion and love, but we know criticizing makes us feel good because inherently criticize anybody else your superior. That’s a paradigm. So we’re not superior, but what we want to do is have the facts and the environment to allow people to change. And that’s how I think we’re gonna make meaningful change in the conservation world.
Gerry:
Well it’s interesting that you say that because it was just over, I guess it’s almost two months ago now, that both the Indonesian and Malaysian governments sort of teamed up to hire outside PR firms to fight push against the palm oil industry. They felt it was necessary to create their own PR campaigns in the EU and other places to fight this what they saw as an attack. So that tribalism is in full force.
Leif:
It is. And so I mean a broader problem is in general, we’ve lost our democracies to big business interests. Politicians will do what their funders tell ’em to do, not what their voters tell ’em to do. Because if you’ve got enough funds, you can get the voters to vote for you. And so we’ve lost control. And so we had these vested interests in America, for example, the fossil fuels and pharmacies and what not. They control government decision making, and their vested interests is what drives politician’s decision making. But also they’re in the same group, if that makes sense. They socialize together, they’re the same people and so they’re in that cult. So it’s not that these politicians are going, yeah, yeah, we’re doing the dirty on them because we’re getting money from the palm oil industry. Well they’re getting money, but they also think they’re doing a good thing and their mates and their tribes are getting rich and it’s all wonderful. So it’s not at a conscious level. So it’s at a subconscious level, where the government is subject to more influence from connections and out white bribery, the company’s are intelligently applying the tribal mind and connectedness with the politicians. And so it’s no surprise that governments then do the bidding of their funders in this case supporting the palm oil industry, even though the fact is the palm oil industry is gonna leave Indonesia and Malaysia an economic basket case in fifty- sixty years where these unsustainable monocultures collapsed and the people are starving. And really they need to move away from these unsustainable monocultures now, in order for the prosperity. But in their group, where they all associate together and even get conservationists who join these groups into the organizations, they’re all friends now and they buy into the collective lie and they move forward. So you even might find conservationists supporting some of these things because all of a sudden they become part of this collective delusion.
Gerry:
Well, on that note, I wanna thank you and let you get back to your tribe because you’re just starting your day there. So I’m sure your tribe is wanting to talk to you and needing you. And thanks for talking to the little tribe that we’re trying to build here on Talking apes. This has been, I know it’s been kind of wide ranging, but I really appreciate your thoughts and just your insights and I’d love to have you back on sometime when we can pursue some other ideas. We didn’t talk a lot about the Orangutan Project specifically, and I know there’s some things that you’re doing in Sumatra that I would love to touch on and share with folks, so maybe we can get you back.
Leif:
Yeah, that’d be wonderful. The main thing is, we’re saving the right type, shape and size of forest to take oranguntans and other biodiversity through the extinction crisis. And it’s a wonderful way that we are offering people the opportunity to collectivize and make a meaningful impact in the world. And we’ve got the next ten years to do this. So we’re not only gonna save these ecosystems, but we’ll hopefully provide people a wonderful opportunity to make a meaningful impact in the world, at the same time becoming happier.
Gerry:
And if they wanna collectivize with you, how do they find you?
Leif:
They can go to our website, the orangutanproject.org. And there’s there’s many ways to donate to orangutans and save the forest. And in addition to donations, because we are all living off the wealth of our grandchildren, putting some back to save the future of the planet. People who don’t have a lot of money, collectivise in their own areas to run quiz nights and events and make a powerful impact, using labor rather than the money.
Gerry:
Once again, I’d like to thank Leif Cox for his humanist perspective on being a great ape. It may be the single quality that ends up saving all apes like us. You’ve been listening to Talking apes, where each episode we explore the world of apes with experts from research to outreach with passionate primate people and conservationists from around the world. Our guests are at the forefront of news about our wild primate cousins. You can find previous episodes of Talking Apes on our website www.GLOBIO.org talking apes or wherever you get your podcast. If you have any questions for us here at Talking Apes or ideas about future podcasts, you can always email us at media.GLOBIO.org. I’d like to thank Talking Apes producer Meg Stark for all of her work in putting together another great podcast of talking Apes. And finally, thank you. The Talking Apes podcast is made possible by listeners like you. So please consider supporting Talking Apes with a tax deductible donation at GLOBIO.org. I’m Gerry Ellis, thanks for listening to Talking Apes.
