My family… we’re country folk. We know a lot about plants and soil, bugs and birds, and animals. So when my dad said to me this summer that he thought his garden was doing better this year, it was really nothing new. It was surprising, however, because my dad has been really sick this year and unable to do much with the garden, short of getting it planted in the ground. I went over and looked at it. It was covered in ‘weeds.’ Things were growing: vegetables, flowers, herbs. No nice, neat, orderly rows that one would expect in a “typical” garden, but it was working, nonetheless. After a nice visit, my son and I took some vegetables and drove back to suburbia. Continue reading
In her article, “Towards a Deeper Philosophy of Biomimicry,” Freya Mathews argues that biomimicry is philosophically under-developed. The current objective of biomimicry is to reorganize what and how we make things, instead of why we make things. Focusing on the what and how presumes a shift in why (i.e. a shift in the maker’s mindset) will follow. It presumes that the act of emulating natural forms and processes delivers increased consciousness of the principles of natural systems, and eventually, behavioral alignment with those principles. But it is dangerous to presume a shift in why. Given the current state of our environment we assume far too great a risk by delaying attention to the why. To accelerate a mindset shift, we must address the following questions: Why do we make things? What optimal future state are we pursuing through biomimetic innovation? Answers to these questions will help us develop a more robust biomimicry philosophy.