還有，托馬斯.摩爾的《烏托邦》也是中文翻譯，原名是《關於最完美的國家制度和烏托邦新島的既有益又有趣的金書》，拉丁語 ‘Libellus vere aureus, nec minus salutaris quam festivus, de optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia’
出版於1719年，家喻戶曉的《魯濱遜漂流記》，最初的書名是這樣的：The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York,Mariner: who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in anuninhabited Island on the coast of America, near the Mouth of theGreat River of Oroonoque;Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck,wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how hewas at last as strangely deliver’d by Pirates. Written by Himself. （懶得翻，翻白眼更好）
Liberica has been cultivated in Southeast Asia since the late 19th century and has a cultivation history of nearly a hundred years. However, it only accounts for less than 2% of the global coffee production. This phenomenon is due to its own biological characteristics and crop economics. This article attempts to address these questions through the current development status of Liberica coffee in East Malaysia.
This article is a continuation of our observations and sharing of the Liberica coffee issues in Sarawak, Malaysia, following the Borneo Coffee Symposium and the first international Liberica roasting competition held in 2019. For related information, you can refer to an article by our friend Dr. Bertha Chin published on Perfect Daily Grind on May 3, 2019, titled ‘How The Malaysian State of Sarawak Is Rethinking Liberica Coffee.’
Since the devastating outbreak of coffee leaf rust in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asian countries in the late 19th century, Liberica coffee from West Africa was introduced to Southeast Asia as a candidate coffee variety with effective resistance against coffee leaf rust. Later, different factions of Western colonisers planted Liberica coffee in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
In the 1900s, Canephora (Robusta) was discovered as an option with similar resistance to coffee leaf rust but higher yield and gradually replaced Liberica as the mainstream coffee crop in Southeast Asia. Subsequently, in 1927, Hybrid de Timor, a natural hybrid of Arabica and Canephora discovered in East Timor, became another option.
Since Hybrid de Timor is an Arabicoid, being a tetraploid coffee like Arabica, they can crossbreed. Its emergence provided Arabica coffee with a hybrid genetic resource that not only had resistance to coffee leaf rust but also improved productivity. Planting such Arabica hybrids became a better option in Indonesia and other areas, further diminishing the demand for Liberica.
In Malaysia, some Liberica coffee trees were abandoned in the dense rainforest, while others became a small-scale option grown by local communities. Despite the continuous efforts of the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) to develop Liberica varieties with better disease resistance and higher yield over the past few decades, the limited acceptance of Liberica coffee flavour in the market, coupled with its low productivity and challenging harvesting, has hindered its economic viability.
Although in recent years, there have been award-winning Liberica coffee estates like My Liberica in Peninsular Malaysia, the situation in East Malaysia’s Borneo is different.
Having promoted Liberica coffee in Sarawak, East Malaysia, for many years, I was invited by Alasdair Clayre, a white indigenous person (locally known as Orang Putih Asli) from the interior of Sarawak, to visit the local Indigenous Liberica coffee plantations in April this year. Our group, including Raven Kwok from Earthlings Coffee and Jackz Lee from Sabarica, embarked on a journey to the remote inland areas to assess the current state of Liberica coffee cultivation among the indigenous communities and help address their challenges.
Overall, the results of our exploration were both surprising and concerning. Firstly, we discovered that there may be many undiscovered Liberica and Excelsa coffee varieties in the highlands of Borneo. From the Bario Highlands in the interior of Sarawak to the Long Banga village, we passed through many indigenous longhouse communities, where Liberica and Excelsa coffee were grown in sparse quantities, ranging from a few hundred to several thousand trees. Similar situations are said to be found in many villages in Sarawak.
Surprisingly, in many of the villages we visited, when asked about the varieties they planted, the local villagers proudly told us that they were planting “good, large-sized Arabica" coffee. However, upon entering the plantations, we found that they were mostly growing Liberica and Excelsa varieties, with only one or two Canephora trees. It seems that many villagers were not properly informed of the type of coffee they are planting.
Regarding Excelsa, which was initially considered a separate species but later included as a variety of Liberica; this is an ongoing debate. However, from the perspective of seed morphology alone, the differences between Liberica and Excelsa are much greater than those between Arabica and Canephora.
These two types of coffee are interplanted in the highlands of Sarawak, and the Liberica coffee trees grown by the indigenous communities in this region not only differ in appearance but also in the colours, shapes, yields, and flavours of their cherries and seeds. Along the way, we encountered Liberica (or Excelsa) trees with cherries in red, yellow, orange, and purple colours. Among them, the purple cherries could further categorised into large and small-sized cherries.
In terms of fruit morphology, in addition to the large-sized, puffy, almond-shaped Liberica with a wider center cut that is commonly seen in the market, there are also variations with smaller-sized, raindrop-shaped Excelsa seeds. Some cherries even resemble dates or olives, with sharp and pointy ‘nipples’. A pink Liberica blossom is also being spotted for the first time during the trip.
Another noteworthy issue is the impact of different altitudes on the shape of Liberica. Based on my observations, the Liberica coffee commonly seen in the market, characterised by large, puffy, elongated beans resembling almonds, is mostly grown in lowland areas, and is rarely found in highlands. Liberica grown in the highlands of Sarawak seems to resemble the “hard beans" of many Arabica varieties, with a tighter center cut, smaller bean size, and higher density. There are also noticeable differences in taste. Similar traits were observed in Liberica from high-altitude regions in southern India and the interior of Sarawak around 500 masl.
Regarding the classification of these Liberica types and the possibility of undiscovered varieties, as well as the potential hybridisation between Liberica and other coffee species similar to the S288 hybrid (a natural tetraploid hybrid of Liberica and Arabica) discovered in India, we are actively collaborating with Coffee Consulate, a coffee research institution in Germany, to find answers to these questions.
As for the source of the local coffee seedlings, today, most of them were provided by government based agricultural agencies. Government initiatives aren’t exactly a strange thing within this part of the world, considering it was the colonial government who initiated cultivating cash crop, including coffee in the Southeast Asia region.
The history of Sarawak coffee, is another form of coloniality. This portion of this piece is written by our friend, Melissa Riman, a PhD Researcher and also a volunteer researcher for the Brooke Museum.
Sarawak was once ruled by British subjects, called the Brookes. They weren’t exactly associated to the British empire but were trading within the empire system. Now this included coffee and tea. The second Rajah Brooke i.e. Charles Brooke formulated many policies included agricultural production and trade. His interest in coffee prompted information seeking from Ceylon. According to the records found in the Sarawak Gazette, Liberica seeds arrived in Sarawak around 1876-1877. Prior to that, Sarawak had already planted Coffea Arabica since 1866. However it was not successful, due to environmental constraints.
Record suggests that Liberica was introduced to Sarawak in 1879 to replace Arabica. They were first planted around the country (Sarawak was a sovereign nation, prior to colonial British in 1941), for example in Segu (today it is known as Segu Benuk), Satap, Simanggang, Lubok Antu, Saribas, Kapit, Mukah, Bintulu, Baram and in many other smaller family farms. Some of these coffee farms were also initiated and maintained by the Roman Catholic missionaries. Coffee instantly became the first cash crop for the Iban people and later followed by other indigenous farmers.
The first large scaled Brooke government coffee plantation in Sarawak is up in Mount Matang. An Italian naturalist, Odoardo Beccari began an expedition up in Mount Matang, prompting Charles Brooke to build a coffee farm around the mountain and a villa called Vallembrosa, where he spent most of his time caring for the plantation. The plantation villa also housed guests such as the painter Marianne North (her works can be found at the Kews, London).
All of these information can be found in the Sarawak Gazette 1888, the Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) Vol. 1888, The Brooke’s Archive and from the columns of Ceylon Observer.
Now let’s get back to my story. There were also another school of thought that claims coffee seedlings were brought into Sarawak, from her neighbour Kalimantan, Indonesia. It might make sense since the Dutch, during that period of high migration time were also populating Indonesia with coffee farms. Before or even during the establishment of a new political border i.e. Malaysia in 1963, there had always been an extensive interaction between all of the indigenous groups in Sarawak and Kalimantan. But what I want to focus on right now is on the Sarawak highland indigenous community such as Kelabit, Kenyah, Penan, Sa’ban – especially because I am working closely with these communities now.
Within the dense rainforest of Borneo, there is an invisible political line separating Malaysia Sarawak and Kalimantan Indonesia. Stretching out over a thousand kilometres (1,032km to be precise), there are patches of unguarded “borders” connecting the communities in Sarawak and their neighbours in Kalimantan. Today, they still visit each other, exchange goods and labour, as they always do for generations.
Even in recent years, there have been reports of people smuggling coffee seedlings from the Indonesian border into Sarawak. This has resulted in significant differences between the Liberica coffee grown locally and that in West Malaysia. Local farmers rarely grow the MK series Liberica developed by MARDI.
During a recent cupping session held in Kuching, Sarawak’s capital city, our team, together with indigenous Liberica coffee farmers from the rural Sarawak, tested 14 different Liberica samples, including those from West Malaysia, India, Kalimantan, lowlands and highlands of Sarawak (Excelsa samples were also among them). There are significant flavour differences among these Liberica varieties.
From another perspective, Liberica coffee has great potential for exploration. Regarding the flavour characteristics of Liberica, a comprehensive flavour report was compiled by Dr. Steffen Schwarz based on the records of professional judges from around the world during the 2019 Liberica Coffee International Roasting Competition. Dr. Schwarz, the head judge of this competition, is a pioneer for advocating Liberica coffee in Europe. Look up ‘Liberica Coffee International Roasting Competition 2019’ for more information on this report.
Setting aside the limited acceptance of Liberica’s unique flavour in the market, there are still many challenges faced by the Liberica cultivators.
From a yield (rendement) perspective, current data suggests that Liberica coffee has a yield of approximately 7% on average, while Excelsa coffee has a yield of around 11%. This means that from 100 kilograms of Liberica cherries, we can obtain only about 7 kilograms of seeds. According to Jason Liew, the owner of My Liberica plantation in Malaysia, if anaerobic processing is applied, the seed damage rate will be higher, resulting in even lower yield.
However, the productivity rate of Liberica and Excelsa cannot be determined by seed yield percentage alone. This rate needs to be considered in terms of the total fruit production per tree each year. Unfortunately, we currently do not have data on this.
However, regardless of the comparisons, Liberica is at a disadvantage compared to Arabica and Canephora, which have yields ranging from 20% to 25%. （It is reported that the latest Liberica cultivar selected by Mardi, namely MKL-7, MKL-8, and MKL-9, can achieve a yield of up to 10.6%. if it is true, this would be an exciting outcome worth anticipating.）
Furthermore, unlike Arabica coffee, which is a shrub, Liberica coffee is a small tree that requires more space. Approximately 300 to 500 trees can be planted per acre of land (depending on the formation), and each tree produces about 10 to 20 kilograms of cherries per year. Calculating based on a 7% yield, even without accounting for seed damage during processing, the productivity per acre of land remains low. Additionally, in Malaysia, where labor costs are generally higher compared to neighbouring countries, the cost of cultivating Liberica becomes even higher.
Plus, in certain regions of Malaysia where the dry and wet seasons are not distinct, Liberica coffee trees flower and produce cherries throughout the year, requiring continuous harvesting. This further increases the difficulty and cost of cultivation and processing. These factors are likely the reasons why Liberica has become an unpopular coffee crop.
Regarding solutions to the aforementioned issues, I have a few personal thoughts for reference:
Firstly, from a cost structure perspective, due to its high production difficulty and heavy costs, Liberica coffee is naturally unsuitable as a cheap, mass-produced coffee substitute. Instead, it should be produced as a specialty coffee.
Before production, it is essential to accurately identify the corresponding market segments within the vast and complex global coffee market and customised production according to targeted market demands. Additionally, producers should make good use of side products during Liberica production, such as cascara and dried coffee blossoms, and optimise their production.
Attempting to analyse Liberica production using the existing calculations and business models of Arabica and Canephora is impractical. If the high production costs of Liberica coffee are not addressed, Liberica cultivators lacks sufficient profit and incentives for their cultivation, any initiative and effort to commercialise Liberica would not be sustainable.
From a Liberica cultivator’s perspective, he or she should also conduct precise calculations during the planning phase to determine the minimum acreage of land needed and number of plants required to generate reasonable returns.
The family-style “smallholder farming" model is not impossible, but the planting quantity of each household must reach a scale that is economically viable. I do not recommend planting quantities below 1,800 unless the ultimate goal is not profit-driven sales, but rather to meet the needs of oneself and one’s family (subsistence farming,).
These considerations are crucial, as without proper calculations, local coffee projects are prone to abandonment.
Lastly, for quality optimisation, classifying and cultivating different types of Liberica coffee, and conducting further research on processing methods may enhance market acceptance and ultimately increase Liberica’s market value. These are the directions me and my team at Earthlings Coffee Workshop are currently working on along with many associates and Liberica cultivators in Sarawak.
“To those who ask, ‘Where then have you seen the god? What conviction of their existence leads you to this worship of them?
I reply first that they are in fact visible to our eyes. Secondly, and not withstanding, that I have not seen my own soul either, and yet I honour it, So it is with the god too: from my every experience of their power time after time I am certain that they exist, and I revere them.”
幾年前有一本書叫《為什麼佛學是真的》（Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment ）作者是Robert Wright。書中就提到大量利用科學方法去證實佛學怎樣可以幫助人類減輕生活中的精神痛苦，怎樣可以讓人感覺更幸福的例子，大家可找來看看，我這裡就不談細節了。
No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, aswell as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde;And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
有一句諺語說，你將成為你所吃的 (you become what you eat)。我覺得更貼切的是，你將成為你所吸收的資訊（you become what you’ve learned）。我們會怎麼認知一件事情，進而相信那就是事實，取決於我們吸收到了哪些資訊。只要控制餵養給特定群眾的資訊內容，假以時日你就能夠製造出一批你想要的人。
因為除了奧修的宗教團體，直到今天，美國依然還有著其他各種也在批評傳統教會的新興宗教基地受到憲法的保護。除非是發生類似人民聖殿教（The Peoples Temple of the Disciples of Christ）在南美洲圭亞那的那種嚴重集體死亡的嚴重刑事罪，否則美國政府並無權干預宗教言論自由。只是很不幸的，就在人民聖殿教大屠殺發生6年後的1984年，發生了的罗杰尼希教生物恐怖攻击（1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack），一起被認為是美国历史上的第一次，也是最大规模的一次生物恐怖攻击事件。
Wild Wild Country 這部六集的紀錄片完整的紀錄了奧修莊園城基地從建成到崩潰的始末，大家可以自己在奈飛上找來看，事實的還原度很高，都是第一手資料，沒有借助一句旁白。從各種當時的資料內容中看，無論我們怎樣用“陰謀論”去假設整件事情都是美國政府的計劃都好，無可否認的事實是，最先做出一系列暴力和犯罪行為的，是奧修莊園城一方，事件首先變成威脅美國社會的嚴重刑事案件，最終才被奧修莊園谷外的美國司法權力介入，新手村遊戲清場。
罗杰尼希教生物恐怖攻击，只是問題的表象，是結果。從主觀因素來說，這件事情會發生，和其組織的指導思想內容脫不了關係。我們不妨設想一下，一個行為不需要負責任，說真話或假話完全“隨方便”來說，做任何事情都滑著肩膀，無擔當，絕不認錯的社會會是怎麼行進的？這裡我想更進一步去探討，這個教派的核心思想，是否有潛在的，導致整個“奧修莊園城”最終走向失敗的思想上的根基。這就要討論到奧修的思想了，雖然他不承認自己有過什麼思想，也不承認自己是宗教導師，有過什麼教義。甚至在信眾感到困擾時，奧修會乾脆承認他就是來混淆你的（i am here to confuse you）。
前面我們提到的席拉的助手，也是奧修的資深門徒瑪.珊蒂 (Ma Shanti B)，她在離開奧修的教團後態度可就不像席拉那樣，對奧修的教義還保留那一定的認同，而是痛定思痛的徹底反思過去數十年那一場癲狂的魔咒，在她後期出版的書《破除魔咒：從罗杰尼希教徒的漫長回歸自由之路 》（Breaking the Spell: My Life as a Rajneeshee and the Long Journey Back to Freedom）” 一書當中就提到，奧修很像一種黑白相間，喜歡收集閃亮物件的鳥，他對物質的執著程度讓人感動困惑。
再回到存在主義思潮的角度來分析，近代法國哲學家西蒙.德.波娃 （Simone de Beauvoir ）是女權主義的存在主義代表人物（Feminist existentialism）。她說 A freedom which is interested only in denying freedom must be denied，翻譯過來有點拗口，大意是：一種只對否定自由有興趣的自由必須被否定。這種思想來到奧修這裡就成了一切阻止自由的規範都應該被否定。（西蒙.德.波娃 並不是這個意思）
據說，奧修莊園城到了後期，已經成為美國各地流浪罪犯者的首選天堂。為了增加選票，席拉從美國各地招攬了上千名流浪漢進駐奧修莊園城。除了斂財、販毒、私藏武器、Wild Wild Country 這部紀錄片，其實還紕漏了一些婦女，甚至有母女雙雙在奧修莊園城被性侵的報導。這些都是已被揭露的，我想當年的奧修莊園城，或許還有更多我們所不知的細節正在滋長，但現在這些已經不重要了，重要的是我們應該怎樣去看待這一個教訓。
記得從前在奧克蘭中區讀初中，班主任講課每當帶出一個概念後，常都會問：“還有問題嗎？怎麼沒有疑問和挑戰？你們有在認真思考嗎？如果找不出問題你們這個House (House of Marlborough) 扣一分！”或許是繼承古希臘哲人蘇格拉底詰問法的傳統，“質疑” 和 “批評性思維” 在西方世界的論壇裡是受到鼓勵的，對邏輯漏洞要敏感，能提出好問題比接受一個爛答案重要得多。
另外，每週校際集會，校長開始演說之前都會先讀一段《聖經》裡的文字，然後才正式開始演說。轉過頭，私下如果同學對聖經的內容有疑惑，提出無法回答的質疑，校長會直接說：“Honestly I don’t know, perhaps god will know，have faith”。或許是因為經歷了宗教壟斷思想的中世紀時代和後來的理性啟蒙時代的劇變，西方知識界多少都掌握了信仰與理性之間可切換的平衡。
凡人：「那我就開門見山好了，『暗物質』也好、『量子效應』也好、『多維宇宙』也好、『弦理論』也好，這些都是透過實證科學對大自然現象深入的發掘，讓我們看到原來修煉者的主觀感受當中那些原本只能自由心證的體驗，和客觀世界的事實之間是有很多潛在『相關性』的，除了用一種解釋了等於沒有解釋的『神通』概念來看待，還有非常非常多的可能性。而我必須再一次強調，這種『相關性』雖然可以讓我們聯想到很多與身心靈關係之間理論，甚至讓人感到非常振奮，產生一種自己的理論已經得到證實的感覺。但我們一定要非常小心自己跟古人將自己的神話理解攀附在彩虹之上一樣，『自動』的對號入座，將自己還未證實的觀點直接當成『事實』，然後固執著這個主觀事實。『觀點』和『事實』之間的相關性再高都好，當中還有一個很漫長的遙遙實證之路要走。除非你的觀點實施起來能夠像你切確地掌握製造一道彩虹的原理一樣，經得起客觀的嚴格檢驗、重複檢驗，否則，還是Keep it open 。這樣對自己、對他人、對科學界才是更負責任的做法。」
凡人：「我得先說喔，氣功可是好東西，佛家道家內修當中也有不少有益身心的好東西。只不過這些特殊的現象常被有心人士過度詮釋、曲意濫用了。這就有點像有些人掌握了製造彩虹的手法，卻把彩虹這種自然現象在不明究理的從眾前面包裝成自己的一種神通現象。喔對了，我沒記錯的話，剛剛您提到那一班氣功神仙們，後來都被一個叫司馬南的傢伙出山踢爆了，揭穿他們搞的實際上都是些魔術話術之類的東西對吧？司馬南當時據說還懸賞一百萬人民幣，號稱只要有特異功能人士能夠通過實驗檢測，就可以當場領走那一百萬。結果我們也知道了，千千萬萬被駁倒的氣功大師們除了敢躲在弟子群裡打嘴砲，居然沒有一個人敢出來接受檢驗。而司馬南這做法的低氣顯然是來自美國詹姆斯.藍迪 James Randy的美金一百萬懸賞計畫。這位詹姆斯.藍迪大家都知道，美國和國際上無數靈媒和神通大師的殺手。不僅那一百萬美金特異功能挑戰從來沒有人能通過實驗，而且還引來不少著名的超能力者去接受檢驗，結果紛紛落馬被抓包作弊。有趣的是，被當場抓包作弊的人士當中還包括了近些年一直在出書大談量子和靈魂的前臺大校長李嗣涔的高徒，號稱能手指識字的高橋舞小姐。」
後來還有研究表明，貓的捕鼠意圖實在有限，在很多情況下貓不僅不捕鼠，還願意與鼠為伍。人之所以對貓愛不釋手，那是因為貓的眼睛和臉的比例大小和人類嬰兒一樣，能直接催動人類無法抑制的護幼之心。還有生物學家研究指出貓在某個演化的歷史節點曾經“調整”過自己的叫聲，讓自己叫聲的響亮度和頻率更接近人類的嬰兒，以獲得更高的生存機率。因此人類被貓征服這件事情算是 hard wired了。
简单说，就是 FDA 发现这些已经考试及格的药，后续在使用中存在没有发现的风险，但是这个风险级别有高有低的，因为安全问题强制要求退市，不许卖了，这个是最严重的。次一级的就是，FDA 要求药企在药物上添加黑框的警告语，这些警告是上市以后才发现的风险，只不过尽管又发现了一些风险，但是跟药效比起来，吃它的收益还是远远多于风险的，所以没有要求退市。其实到这一步，已经不太严重了。
但实际情况是怎么样的呢？10年里，通告了总数1/3的药存在大大小小的安全隐患，而且没发现错误。这些风险咱们按常理来判断，一定是药企不愿公开的。但仍然可以这样大面积地有根有据地抓出来、晒出来，它不但不能说明 FDA 是不可靠的，恰恰相反，它正好说明 FDA 在药物上市之后的监管是非常非常严格而系统的，而且上市之后的监管肯定是有一套完善的流程的，有法律的授权，它才能查得这么细致。
稍微想一下就知道，刚才我说的这几种都不是很好找到证据的，它并不是在说明书里或者电视广告里头已经印刷出来了、已经播出来了，没法悔改了，一抓一个准，并不是这样的证据。其实 FDA 的监管，发展到现在也根本就没有大药企敢明目张胆地这么做了。耍的这些滑头都是属于公司运营环节中的一些不正规，但是只要被抓出来了，那也罚到公司肉疼。这些可不是什么小企业，就拿刚刚咱们说的一个药企来说，上世纪40年代，第一款青霉素上市，还有后续第一款土霉素上市，还有大家都熟悉的“伟哥”，都是这家药企研发出来的。
現實上，加州大學聖克魯斯分校（University of California, Santa Cruz，简称UCSC）就設有一個他們稱之為「夢境銀行」的大型夢境數據庫，裡面收集了2.2萬個夢的歸納和整理。在這裡我們且先不討論他們統計結果得出的對人類做夢現象的解讀，有興趣的讀者可以自己Google搜索「夢境銀行」。
）
WeeTing 
