There is something undeniably cool about Biomimicry as an approach to green building. Looking to natural systems and processes for inspiration for design solutions just seems like a good idea. The proponents of biomimetic architecture are convincing; their images are sexy; the reasoning, at first glance, seems infallible. Is there a catch to this utopian green building philosophy?
As with other approaches to green building, biomimicry brings with it a very optimistic - borderline-visionary rhetoric. Nature, believers will tell you, has answers; lots of answers; all the answers we need! Sure, nature has been around longer than we have, and yes, there are lots of examples of cases where "natural" models have offered inspiration for how to solve complex and complicated predicaments. However, as much as I want to believe that biomimicry is the solution to all of our green building woes, there are a couple of things about this approach that I haven't quite been able to reconcile.
Biomimicry re-enforces an overly-simplistic distinction between "nature" over there and us [humans, designers, architects, etc.] over here. If you read between the lines, the over-arching assumption is that "nature" is pure and logical and balanced and good and we are, well, somewhere in between not and less so, depending on your personal environmental politics. The implication is that as humans, we are flawed; therefore, we ought to look to "nature," the ultimate teacher, in an effort to understand and replicate the "right" [i.e. "natural"] way of doing thingsyou know, all of the things we have ignored and overlooked over the past few hundred years of our mis-guided modernity.
Socialize