Ethical Implications of Biomimicry
Future of Design in an Age of Biology
Today we are living at an incredible juncture in time, when developments in the fields of building technology, material sciences, genetics, robotics, digital fabrication, computational design, synthetic biology and nanotechnology give us the ability to design everything material and artificial at the scale and sophistication of a cell. We now have the capacity to design, mimic and engineer things that once only nature was able to.
Ecology is the science that aims to define relationships between organisms, and/or organisms with their natural environment. Biological design or biomimicry is a school of thought that involves studying nature’s models and emulating these ecological designs and processes to solve human problems. Perhaps this is indicative of a shift from the anthropocentric school of thought to a form of design thinking that first and foremost prioritizes ecological balance. Movements inspired by biomimicry such as “organic architecture” or “genetic architecture” redefines this relationship by placing artificially designed materials within the ‘context of natural ecology. The movement involves conserving, altering, improving, and augmenting the natural environment through novel technological means. Some theorists believe that the future of design demands the integration of genetic architecture—bio-inspired design and digital fabrication that will relate, adapt and respond to natural ecology, such as engineering 3D-printed smart objects infused with organic material, genes, pigments such as melanin or bacteria. Genetic architecting may thus provide us with a potential way of responding to some of our gravest environmental concerns, and the needs of the countless species on Earth.
In the future, this may however also mean that one will not be able to distinguish between the natural and the artificial, for good and for bad. This entails new ways of rethinking not only relations between materials, objects, the built environment, and construction processes but also new interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary frameworks of collaboration. As we strive for a bio-inclusive sustainable future, we must reflect upon to what extent does genetic architecture ultimately aid in shifting anthropocentric design to eco-centric design.
Key words – eco-centric, anthropocentric, biomimicry, biomimetic, genetic architecture, sustainability
Rise of Environmentalism & Developing a Bio-inclusive Ethic
The industrial revolution marks the shift from agrarian economies to one dominated by industry and machine. Global challenges of widespread air and water pollution, reduction in biodiversity and wildlife, and climate change can be traced back to this moment in human history. Disillusioned with a design method that puts people first resulted in overstretching the finite resources of our planet. Conservation movements dating back to the early 20th century act as testaments to the urge of protecting, preserving and restoring the state of our natural environment (Mathews, 2011). Today, the human culture recognizes the damage being caused to our environment and is in the process of transitioning towards sustainable systems. Popularization of the concept of “biomimicry” amongst designers may help attain the goal of ecological integrity, arguably more so than the traditionalist environmentalist movements. However, critical ambiguities remain within the scope of biomimicry or biomimesis; it remains extremely vulnerable to cooptation by an anthropocentric frame of mind, which had launched the industrial revolution.
Two branches of environmentalism are particularly prevalent in the present day: (1) resource conservation linked to government agencies concerned with forestry, fishery, soil conservation and mining, and (2) resource preservation that concerns the ethos of national parks and wildlife conservation reserves. The latter is rooted in notions of biodiversity conservation (Mathews, 2011). Both strands have received much criticism.
Resource conservatives are accused of treating nature as existing only to serve the needs and interests of humankind. They are thus considered as anthropocentric, who deem humankind as the exclusive locus of moral significance. According to Immanuel Kant in “Duties towards animals and spirits”, “animals are not selfconscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man” (Kant, 1963). However, does the sole ability of being able to self-organize allow man to be the “measure of all things” (Protagoras’s Theory)?
Resource preservationists in contrast are accused with valuing nature over humanity—inasmuch regarding landscapes of lesser value when altered by human activity (Mathews, 2011). Their school of thought can be linked to an eco-centric approach: a philosophy that views all living organisms and their natural environment as having intrinsic value, regardless of their perceived “usefulness” to humankind. Larger ecosystems are regarded with the same morally significance as humans. The preservationists uphold a strict environmental ethic: designing of and for nature. Those who have a higher regard for humanity at the expense of nature lack such ethics. There are a number of issues associated with such crude duality, and it can be linked to how “nature” is defined, and the conception of how it stands opposed to the human. The proponents of either strand lines us up either for or against nature. However, in order to achieve a bioinclusive environmental ethic that expands to include interests of broader systems, we need an inclusive conception of nature. To arrive at such a non-dualistic conception, advocates of sustainability suggest looking beyond traditional production means. For example, integrating socio-economic processes with ecological processes rather than treating them as separate entities (Mathews, 2011). In such a manner, all our industrial production means, agriculture, forestry, mining, manufacturing, urban planning and the built environment can occur in synergy with nature. Our design culture should emulate the same design principles, processes and entities as those of the species that have evolved over millennia of natural evolution.
Biomimicry
This is the design philosophy that is currently “biological design” or “biomimicry”, an idea promoted by thinkers like biologist Janine Benyus, and designer William McDonough. Benyus describes biomimicry as a means of not just extracting from the natural world, rather valuing it and learning from it (Benyus, 2009). In addition, the Hannover principles by McDough provides a guideline for biomemtic design, synergy and promotes the co-existence between humanity and nature (McDonough et. al, 2003):
Insist on the rights of humanity and nature to co-exist.
? Recognize interdependence and reward cooperation
? Respect relationships between spirit and matter.
? Accept responsibility for the consequences of design.
? Create safe objects of long-term value.
? Eliminate the concept of waste.
? Rely on natural energy flows.
? Understand the limitations of design.
? Seek constant improvement by the sharing of knowledge.
? Symbiotic design- material design- biomimicry- biophilia- resilience thinking- all interventions that attempt, to a large extent to resolve the disconnect between humans and nature- “ecological consciousness”.
I agree with the claim presented in “Towards a Deeper Philosophy of Biomimicry” that when biomimicry is described in such terms, it is slightly lacking in their ability to establish an environmental ethic for designers (Mathews, 2011). Nature is identified as a model for designing strategies for particular plants and animal species, and we are to emulate said principles in our work. The principles are descriptive yet do not go in depth. It is only when we understand why a plant “relies on natural energy flows”, why it recycles or why it “recognizes interdependence and rewards cooperation” that we can truly understand nature and yield a non-dualistic conception of environmental ethics.
Examples of such bio-inspired products include the self-fastening fabric (Velcro) designed by a Swiss engineer who identified the phenomenon by which bur seemed to cling to his dog’s fur, or a “smart” fabric inspired by pinecones; the fabric would be composed of “scales,” which are responsive to changes in temperature-- opening under warm and closing under cold conditions (Benyus, 2009). Yet Benyus points out that it remains inadequate that products imitate elements in nature (Benyus, 2009). Large scale infrastructure and processes must also follow natural design in order to be deemed as an eco-centric approach. For e.g. engineering a self-powered sewage treatment plants that regenerate waste flows into resources for the ecosystem—for instance, by redirecting wastewater into wetlands for natural purification, which can provide as habitat for birds and aquatic beings (Benyus, 2009). Our means and our ends must be shaped by nature. The current interpretations of biomimicry seeks nature as a storehouse of readymade design solutions that will help us respond to the needs within our consumer society. We must allow nature to dictate our designs, our instruments and desires as well as the blueprint to achieve those desires.
Genetic Architecture: tapping into the genetic code
Theorists in the field of architecture who claim that the solution to achieving sustainability lies in a different form of biomimetic design, known as “organic architecture” or “genetic architecture”. “Genetic architecture” is based around technologies of morphologies derived from interdisciplinary sciences—genetics, digital fabrication and computational design (Chu, 2009). Theorists and designers advocating “autonomous” architectures that adapt, self-constellate and selfreplicate in response to their environment. The structures would be truly “organic”, dictated by the morphogenetic principles of life itself. Such a morphogenic approach to genetic architecture is described by proponent Karl Chu (Chu, 2009). Chu describes as “messianic”, actualizing alternative worlds that recreate “nature” from scratch—the dream of autonomy from a pregiven nature, now rendered possible by tapping into the genetic code (Chu, 2009).
“The morphogenetic approach, which is based on the logic of an internal principle or code that generates morphology, seeks to establish the autonomy of architecture . . . the notion of autonomy that I am proposing with genetic architecture is based on genetic code: a two-fold logic of recursion and self-replication founded upon the principles of computation. It is predicated on recursive unfolding of the morphogenetic potential implicit within a genetic code. . . . Genetic architecture is perhaps the clearest example of the emergence of the will to existence, an unequivocal affirmation of life, including artificial life, in, perhaps, all its modalities” (Chu, 2009)
An ethical ambiguity remains in such an interpretation of bio-inspired design. What is stopping designers from altogether usurping the “parliament of 30 million species” and replacing it with a “new, improved nature”—an artificially-generated yet entirely sustainable “nature”? Does such an artificially generated, yet fully sustainable “nature” fall under the category of eco-centric design thinking? What ultimately constitutes the line between eco-centric and anthropocentric design thinking?
According to the paper “Towards a Deeper Philosophy of Biomimicry”, the opinions are split regarding the two interpretations of biomimetic design (Mathews, 2011). For some theorists, biomimicry acts as the means by which our existing parliament of species can be saved, whilst the other school of thought advocates the replacement of that parliament with a “new, improved nature” (Mathews, 2011). Both parties are in agreement with regards to restituting humankind inside nature—for the former it is indicative of a moral respect towards the millennia of natural evolution that makes us who we are today, versus the latter who bear a greater respect for abstracter regeneration and self-genesis. They both utilize biomimicry as a basis and justifiable as models of sustainability, however with a critical distinction. This goes back to the definition of eco-centrism and nature, linked to the evolutionary impulse of all species to preserve and increase their own existence (Mathews, 2011). It is this ontological autonomy and self-directedness that, on the basis prevailing theories of environmental ethics, confers moral considerability on them. A “new, improved nature” created using artificial means may contain systems that adapt to their environments but since such externally-directed systems would inevitably designed with human motives in sight.
Our Role as Designers
As supported by source “Symbiotic Design Practice”, technology is not violation of nature and we are in our right to explore the benefit of our technological ingenuity to support nature (Sánchez Ruano, 2016). Substituting nature by mimicking its essential qualities is not key, rather it is the symbiotic consciousness that is of essence. From a designer’s perspective, this defines the importance of providing meaningful narratives and intuitively feeling the appropriateness of our designs in order to sustain and nurture our planet: a technological paradox for scientists and skeptical designers (Sánchez Ruano, 2016). A synergetic relationship, an ecocentric design approach would lead to solutions like permaculture in an altruistic sense, eco-literate communities, zero-waste industries and local craftsmanship where healthy interrelationships are maintained in both inner and outer ecologies. Of critical importance is the trend that we are transitioning from a mechanicalobject ethos to an organic-system ethos and as such we must establish the role of design in an age of biology. It is a profound cultural shift in design thinking which will entail new changes in worldview and the place of human beings within it. This notion raises the need to promote a new vision of ecological practices and the ethos of biomimicry