Promises and Presuppositions of Biomimicry

biomimetics Article Promises and Presuppositions of Biomimicry Rebecca Barbara MacKinnon 1, *, Jeroen Oomen 2 and Maibritt Pedersen Zari 3 1 2 3 * Graduate School of Life Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands Urban Futures Studio, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; Wellington School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6012, New Zealand; Correspondence: Received: 30 May 2020; Accepted: 8 July 2020; Published: 9 July 2020



 Abstract: Under the umbrella of biologically informed disciplines, biomimicry is a design methodology that proponents often assert will lead to a more sustainable future. In realizing that future, it becomes necessary to discern specifically what biomimicry’s “promises” are in relation to sustainable futures, and what is required in order for them to be fulfilled. This paper presents research examining the webpages of the Biomimicry Global Network (BGN) to extract the claims and promises expressed by biomimicry practitioners. These promises are assessed using current literature to determine their presuppositions and requirements. Biomimicry’s promises are expressed in terms of potential for innovation, sustainability, and transformation and appear to depend on perceived relationships between humanity and nature; nature and technology; the underlying value judgements of practitioners. The findings emphasize that in order for the communicated promise of biomimicry to be realized, a particular ethos and respectful engagement with nature must accompany the technological endeavors of the practice. Keywords: biomimicry; promise; sustainability; innovation 1. Introduction The flow of biological knowledge into the field of design has led to novel research across many disciplines including materials science, architecture, urban design, computer science, and robotics [1,2]. Within this arena of innovation, biomimicry is a distinct discipline [3,4]. Although it has a longer history, biomimicry was popularized after Janine Benyus published Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature in 1997 [5]. The seminal publication consolidated the concept of biomimicry, differentiating it from practices developing in parallel by emphasizing its focus on sustainability. Since then, the expressed potential of biomimicry has increased rapidly, demonstrated by the increasing number of associated practitioners, educational programs, and patented projects [6]. According to advocates, technological biomimicry is brimming with promise. Mathews [7], for example, argues that a second industrial revolution based on biomimicry is pending and that it is a revolution that could change the world beyond recognition. Biomimicry has been described as a field that fascinates [6]; that presents novel ways of viewing and valuing nature [8]; that has an approach that will “inspire new mindsets, values and narratives concerning the relationship between people and nature and alternative visions of development” [9]. In the words of Biomimicry South Africa, biomimicry is “a game changer: after we hear it and understand it, we never see the world quite the same ever again ( . . . .) It’s one of the most inspiring approaches to the world’s big challenges that you’ll discover”. Taking inspiration from nature is not new to innovation, nor is it unique to biomimicry. The term “biomimetic promise” was coined by von Gleich et al. [6] to capture the promise of bio-inspired designs Biomimetics 2020, 5, 33; doi:10.3390/biomimetics5030033 www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics Biomimetics 2020, 5, 33 2 of 14 (including biomimetics, bionics, and biomimicry). It suggests that, by taking inspiration from nature, and thus relying on evolutionary optimization, bio-inspired solutions ought to be innovative, but also ecologically sound, resilient, and low risk [6,9]. This promise links bio-inspired fields to the discourse on sustainability [9]. However, although biomimetics, bionics, and biomimicry are concerned with the transfer of knowledge from the natural to the human-made world, they rest on different intentions, levels of mimicry, and are often associated with disparate disciplines [3,10]. The fulfilment of the biomimetic promise may thus differ for each practice. Within this paper, the term biomimetic is used as an adjective to refer to solutions associated with biomimicry, and not to the practice of biomimetics. Advocates of biomimicry have promised that it will spark a technological, environmental, and even social revolution [11]. Beyond the delivery of sustainable design, biomimicry is presented as a new lens through which to view the natural world [5,12]. By promoting a shift in perspectives, hierarchies, and beliefs, biomimicry is, according to its advocates, working towards recognizing the intrinsic value of nature [13]. It is based on a view of nature as a source of knowledge rather than an object of knowledge [12], and natural systems as inspiration rather than as resource. What biomimicry practitioners and advocates seem to promise is the disintegration of the idea of the human as having domain over nature as it is now known, thereby eliminating the idealized image of humans as a supreme species [11]. Benyus refers to this as an unsettling of human exceptionalism and as biomimicry’s most profound contribution [5]. By exploring nature for inspiration, the hope is that as observers, humanity will engender a more respectful, responsible, and humble engagement with not only nonhuman, but human life as well [11]. Expressing these high hopes, practitioners make technological promises and create expectations around the effectiveness of biomimicry as a means to achieve sustainable and transformative change. Biomimicry’s promises are issued as hopeful enactments of a desired future. These promises matter, because they are an attempt to raise both general enthusiasm and specific expectations around biomimicry. In describing such promises, they may become widely shared expectations of potential future technological situations that attract investment [14]. Promises and expectations matter, because they provide a “prospective structure” that shapes practitioners, policymakers, and potential investors’ agendas and actions [15–18]. Firms and policymakers are often confronted with technological expectations and promises upon which they have to make decisions. Many of those reveal disappointing outcomes [14]. Not only do promises structure decision-making in the present, they also co-produce an imaginary about what a desirable future ought to be like. Such socio-technical imaginaries, collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures, animated by shared understandings of forms of social life, and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology, further come to shape technological development, impacting the k (...truncated)