Discover more from Oxymoron
Tikopia lies in the vastness of the Pacific Ocean. A tiny island formed of an extinct volcano, it’s just five square kilometers in size. It was inhabited by the Polynesians roughly a thousand years ago, along with other pacific islands such as Easter Island and Mangareva.
The rich culture of Easter Island with its monumental statues is a famous example of a lost civilisation. With the loss of native plant and animal species, unsustainable soil erosion and a large population to feed, Easter Island and some other pacific islands eventually exceeded their natural limits and their societies collapsed. Tikopia however, did not. Despite its similarities in culture and agricultural practices, somehow Tikopia managed to avoid the fate of its neighbours, but how?
When things started to get tough for the Tikopians, they acted differently. Instead of doubling down on doing the same things and hoping for different results, the Tikopian chiefs led a huge cultural change to bring their society back within the carrying capacity of their island. Pigs and dogs were exterminated, key species of fish were protected from fishing while slash and burn agriculture was banned. The old practices were replaced by a complex system of mixed food forests along with protection of key native species to act as a food reserve for hard times. In addition, they introduced a strict cap on the population of the island that was not allowed to ever exceed the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Some of their methods may seem shocking in today's culture but they were considered essential for the island’s survival.
When Western missionaries arrived in the 20th century, they were appalled by some of the practices that they witnessed and abolished them. Their good intentions rebounded and led to rapid population growth and resource consumption, which contributed to widespread famine and eventually the need for food aid from the British Solomon Islands. The island chiefs once again took control of their own destiny and reintroduced population limits and careful agricultural controls to bring Tikopia back into balance.
Tikopia is one of the few known societies in human history that has managed to pull back from the brink of collapse. Furthermore, they've done it twice.
As we stand here now in the largest and most advanced civilization the world has ever seen, consuming resources far faster than the planet can regenerate, we need to look ahead and ask ourselves how exactly we will stop ourselves from overshooting.
While we are busy studying Doughnut Economic theory, Net Zero strategies and the latest tech that promises to solve everything, Tikopia sits there quietly offering us a lesson from history. Tikopia is not a theory or an idea, but a real life case study in sustainable economics. Even if we don't agree with all of the Tikopian methods and don’t want to emulate them, the basic principle that they teach us is clear. We need to set boundaries for ourselves before nature imposes them for us.
Furthermore, we will need to come together as a society to agree and honour these boundaries. The idea of setting environmental boundaries on our societies may feel uncomfortable. It may feel at odds with our beliefs in freedom and abundance. But that would be to miss the point. Freedom and abundance are conditions that exist within a society that has sustainable outer boundaries. We live in a world with an uncountable number of laws and regulations controlling small details of our daily lives, but a complete absence of top level boundaries on the total consumption of our society.
As world leaders prepare themselves to convene at COP27 in Egypt, setting meaningful science based boundaries is what should be on their minds, but I doubt it is. After all, they've had 26 previous COP meetings to do so and so far haven't achieved much except clocking up air miles on their private jets. Yes, they’ve set some impressive targets and ambitions, but they have never actually agreed any real boundaries. They have never defined or enforced a tangible method of keeping our society within its limits.
So what do we do?
I think we have a few options. The first is to set boundaries for ourselves, as individuals and as businesses. Last week’s post about how we can take meaningful action on climate change listed a number of items that involve imposing our own boundaries. For example, we could set boundaries on:
The type of products and services that we offer
The type of clients that we work with
The methods of transport that we use
The foods that we eat and serve
The materials that we use
The standards we set for our suppliers
The energy sources that we harness
The industrial and agricultural processes that we apply
The efficiency of the products that we create
Setting our own boundaries may not be enough to prevent us eventually overshooting as a society, but it is perhaps a first step in the direction we need to head, especially if we are transparent about our boundaries and contribute to a broader cultural shift.
This brings us onto the second approach we could take, which is to team up with others in setting common boundaries. For example, businesses within the same industry could collaborate to set boundaries for themselves, ensuring that a level playing field is maintained while pursuing more sustainable practices. Interestingly, so called “self-regulation“ by industries is often used as a way to avoid the threat of governments introducing harder regulations. Perhaps it could be pursued for more benevolent reasons.
Another approach would be to use lobbying for the social good. Instead of lobbying for governments to give them a tax break or weaken regulations on their industry, businesses could lobby governments to do what they are there to do and represent the best interests of society. A soft example of this would be something like the Better Business Act, a coalition of over 1500 businesses calling on the UK government to set in law the requirement for all businesses to consider their impacts on society and the environment, not just their financial profits. It’s a great starting point, and perhaps could lead to businesses pushing for more tangible outer boundaries in the future.
In the end, either our political leaders must set appropriate boundaries or we must set them for ourselves. We need to positively reframe the idea of boundaries so that we view them as enablers instead of limitations. Just as we set healthy boundaries in our personal lives to support our own wellbeing, we also need to set healthy boundaries as a society living on a finite planet.
In the spirit of setting healthy boundaries, there won’t be an Oxymoron issue next week as I’ll be busy taking part in several events. If you want to meet me in person or online, you’ll find me at:
The Good Agencies Summit (online and in London)
Ethical Consumer Week: How to use data to make green claims more transparent (online)
Business Declares: The role of business in activism (online on the Clubhouse app)
P.S. As a related side note, this year’s Earth Overshoot Day was on 28th July.
Setting a boundary on business profitability would be a good start! I am trying to think through whether any business with an aim to generate profit can be truly sustainable? Coming to the conclusion that non-profit businesses may be the only ones that could actually be ‘sustainable’ - although not all non-profits will be. That means moving away from a capitalist economic and political model to one that has a far stronger focus on social and environmental ethics.