![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Oh my gawsh
I'm alive! I'm posting! I know!
My lappy's hard drive took a dive the day before the semester started and I just got it back a few days ago. I have a lot of stuff to catch up on, but in the meantime enjoy this paper I wrote the other night about the book Cradle to Cradle (and the Biomimicry Institute) for my LEED class while I nearly pulled an all-nighter. It got a little bit ridiculous.
In discussion of biomimicry, the first idea that comes to mind is the history of flight. In the history of flight, humans had tried for years to create contraptions that would allow for man to leave the earth, and after the creation of balloons and dirigibles, to gain control of the journey. These attempts created many fantastical designs, often more fanciful than functional; attachments for arms, bicycles with spring-like devices attached, carts with tiers of panels in the hopes that more wing-like objects means more lift. In some aspects, this was biomimicry at its earliest; birds and bats (and the fossils of pterosaurs) might not have arms with hands attached, but what remains instead makes them the masters of the air. If they can do it, why can’t we? In other aspects, not so much—it was not until the Wrights’ extensive observation on the curvature of birds’ wings that powered, three-axis-controlled flight was achieved.
Although this example falls under the definition of biomimicry given by the Biomimicry Institute as “a new discipline that studies nature's best ideas and then imitates these designs and processes to solve human problems”, the Institute also works with nature as “[a] measure… to judge the sustainability of our innovations.” It is in this latter regard that the Wrights’ science falls flat. Biomimicry as a buzzword seems to concern the recent expansion of their scientific methods in the application of a sustainable lifestyle. The underlying theory at work here is that nature has had millions of years to create solutions to problems very similar to those encountered by humans; as a result, there is probably at least one, if not several or even many methods that are much more well-suited to human application than a process created from the ground up (irony notwithstanding).
In Cradle to Cradle, the most often referenced form of biomimicry is more of a metaphor than a literal case study and application—a tree. The authors use this tree as an inspirational metaphor for sustainable industrial processes, fulfilling both the definition and the Biomimicry Institute’s tenets for this design method. The problem being studied is a human, technological one: that our advanced processes are often extremely wasteful and even moreso harmful. The sustainable aspect is faced in that there must be a way to create industrial processes that minimize or eliminate the harmful impact on both current and future resources. And here is where the biomimicry comes in—where in nature is there a process that includes creation of a “good”, so to speak, for profit, that creates no toxic waste and has a sustainable use for the wastes it does create? For stylistic simplicity it could be many a plant variety, but a tree is a good symbol in recalling enumeration of “natural resources” and a sturdy, readily available building material that many people throughout time have used to create shelter.
The authors also meet the Institute’s tenets of nature as a model, measure, and mentor. In their original foray into metaphorical biomimicry, the authors explain their newly discovered model for design processes. But, the authors counter, nature has been doing this so effectively that this model schools us in how much we can do; not only should we be striving to simply minimize or eliminate waste and toxins from our processes, but can we create processes that are actually beneficial? Here, too, the model acts as mentor: presenting a challenge to create a net gain for all involved-- economic, equitable, and ecological. The process creates a profit (the “goods”, the tree’s seeds and fruits), returns resources to the process in a viable form (what is currently industrial waste, in this metaphor the compostable leaves and fruit that was not borne to greener pastures), and does no harm in the process (except perhaps injury due to fallen fruit, but thanks to Newton science can just blame it on gravity).
Though McDonough and Braungart’s tree is a conceptual and literary tool, they do cite examples of economically successful, sustainable endeavors. One such example is the textile factory they were able to convince to use only a small selection of environmentally friendly dyes, fibers, and processes that resulted in such a method that not only was the factory saving money on less complicated creation and negligible (or nearly) chemical treatment, but it also resulted in a cleaner effluent than influent. Other examples are not necessarily as grand or seemingly amazing, but illustrate industrial application nonetheless.
The Biomimicry Institute, however, hosts numerous examples of biomimicry in action. From conceptual designs that completely reimagine human approaches (“Wes Jackson (The Land Institute) is studying prairies as a model for an agriculture that features edible, perennial polycultures and that would sustain, rather than strain, the land”) to designs that improve what we already use (“Jay Harman (PAXscientific) has created a super-efficient fan blades, aerators, and propellers based on the geometry of the flow-friendly spiral found in seashells, kelp, and rams horns”) to processes that are perhaps not even concerned with sustainability in the immediate application (“Jeremy Mabbitt (Codefarm) and numerous other companies are mimicking natural selection as an optimizing tool in computer software called genetic algorithms”), there is no shortage of examples. This last example of genetic algorithms recalls the original research of the Wrights—humans don’t fly by nature, so perhaps it is not that they can improve their methods; but in the course of science and exploration, why brute force something nature may already have the answer to? Though not cited by Biomimicry Institute nor the authors of Cradle to Cradle, it brings to mind a recent study in which bees were able to rapidly solve “traveling salesman” problems, a type of problem which often takes computers days to solve.
In contrasting the Biomimicry Institute and the text, it is interesting to note their approaches to the design process. McDonough and Braungart establish a set of goals explicitly separate from current measures of success, but make sure to warn that every case is specific to its immediate environment and cannot—and should not—be forced into every corner of the globe. The Biomimicry Institute, rather, proposes an evaluative strategy that constantly looks for balance, rather than a set of design “standards”. It is termed their “design spiral” and demonstrates a constant check for life and design principles, allowing for identification of problems and improvements if necessary. While neither approach may be ascertainably favorable over the other, each plays to a different audience. For the Institute, it is hoping to get people—in particular, designers—into a new thought process. The authors of Cradle to Cradle are much more concerned with sustainability and human societies; and, as economies are the current evaluative tool of choice, setting goals to be met, rather than an abstract method to be taught, allows for the evolution of a new set of evaluative standards.
I can't even believe I wrote that. Apparently when I stay up late (and then only get 1.5 hours of sleep) my brain transfers function from "ability to form coherent sentences and thought patterns" to "creative but wildly ridiculous thought patterns".
IDEK
My lappy's hard drive took a dive the day before the semester started and I just got it back a few days ago. I have a lot of stuff to catch up on, but in the meantime enjoy this paper I wrote the other night about the book Cradle to Cradle (and the Biomimicry Institute) for my LEED class while I nearly pulled an all-nighter. It got a little bit ridiculous.
In discussion of biomimicry, the first idea that comes to mind is the history of flight. In the history of flight, humans had tried for years to create contraptions that would allow for man to leave the earth, and after the creation of balloons and dirigibles, to gain control of the journey. These attempts created many fantastical designs, often more fanciful than functional; attachments for arms, bicycles with spring-like devices attached, carts with tiers of panels in the hopes that more wing-like objects means more lift. In some aspects, this was biomimicry at its earliest; birds and bats (and the fossils of pterosaurs) might not have arms with hands attached, but what remains instead makes them the masters of the air. If they can do it, why can’t we? In other aspects, not so much—it was not until the Wrights’ extensive observation on the curvature of birds’ wings that powered, three-axis-controlled flight was achieved.
Although this example falls under the definition of biomimicry given by the Biomimicry Institute as “a new discipline that studies nature's best ideas and then imitates these designs and processes to solve human problems”, the Institute also works with nature as “[a] measure… to judge the sustainability of our innovations.” It is in this latter regard that the Wrights’ science falls flat. Biomimicry as a buzzword seems to concern the recent expansion of their scientific methods in the application of a sustainable lifestyle. The underlying theory at work here is that nature has had millions of years to create solutions to problems very similar to those encountered by humans; as a result, there is probably at least one, if not several or even many methods that are much more well-suited to human application than a process created from the ground up (irony notwithstanding).
In Cradle to Cradle, the most often referenced form of biomimicry is more of a metaphor than a literal case study and application—a tree. The authors use this tree as an inspirational metaphor for sustainable industrial processes, fulfilling both the definition and the Biomimicry Institute’s tenets for this design method. The problem being studied is a human, technological one: that our advanced processes are often extremely wasteful and even moreso harmful. The sustainable aspect is faced in that there must be a way to create industrial processes that minimize or eliminate the harmful impact on both current and future resources. And here is where the biomimicry comes in—where in nature is there a process that includes creation of a “good”, so to speak, for profit, that creates no toxic waste and has a sustainable use for the wastes it does create? For stylistic simplicity it could be many a plant variety, but a tree is a good symbol in recalling enumeration of “natural resources” and a sturdy, readily available building material that many people throughout time have used to create shelter.
The authors also meet the Institute’s tenets of nature as a model, measure, and mentor. In their original foray into metaphorical biomimicry, the authors explain their newly discovered model for design processes. But, the authors counter, nature has been doing this so effectively that this model schools us in how much we can do; not only should we be striving to simply minimize or eliminate waste and toxins from our processes, but can we create processes that are actually beneficial? Here, too, the model acts as mentor: presenting a challenge to create a net gain for all involved-- economic, equitable, and ecological. The process creates a profit (the “goods”, the tree’s seeds and fruits), returns resources to the process in a viable form (what is currently industrial waste, in this metaphor the compostable leaves and fruit that was not borne to greener pastures), and does no harm in the process (except perhaps injury due to fallen fruit, but thanks to Newton science can just blame it on gravity).
Though McDonough and Braungart’s tree is a conceptual and literary tool, they do cite examples of economically successful, sustainable endeavors. One such example is the textile factory they were able to convince to use only a small selection of environmentally friendly dyes, fibers, and processes that resulted in such a method that not only was the factory saving money on less complicated creation and negligible (or nearly) chemical treatment, but it also resulted in a cleaner effluent than influent. Other examples are not necessarily as grand or seemingly amazing, but illustrate industrial application nonetheless.
The Biomimicry Institute, however, hosts numerous examples of biomimicry in action. From conceptual designs that completely reimagine human approaches (“Wes Jackson (The Land Institute) is studying prairies as a model for an agriculture that features edible, perennial polycultures and that would sustain, rather than strain, the land”) to designs that improve what we already use (“Jay Harman (PAXscientific) has created a super-efficient fan blades, aerators, and propellers based on the geometry of the flow-friendly spiral found in seashells, kelp, and rams horns”) to processes that are perhaps not even concerned with sustainability in the immediate application (“Jeremy Mabbitt (Codefarm) and numerous other companies are mimicking natural selection as an optimizing tool in computer software called genetic algorithms”), there is no shortage of examples. This last example of genetic algorithms recalls the original research of the Wrights—humans don’t fly by nature, so perhaps it is not that they can improve their methods; but in the course of science and exploration, why brute force something nature may already have the answer to? Though not cited by Biomimicry Institute nor the authors of Cradle to Cradle, it brings to mind a recent study in which bees were able to rapidly solve “traveling salesman” problems, a type of problem which often takes computers days to solve.
In contrasting the Biomimicry Institute and the text, it is interesting to note their approaches to the design process. McDonough and Braungart establish a set of goals explicitly separate from current measures of success, but make sure to warn that every case is specific to its immediate environment and cannot—and should not—be forced into every corner of the globe. The Biomimicry Institute, rather, proposes an evaluative strategy that constantly looks for balance, rather than a set of design “standards”. It is termed their “design spiral” and demonstrates a constant check for life and design principles, allowing for identification of problems and improvements if necessary. While neither approach may be ascertainably favorable over the other, each plays to a different audience. For the Institute, it is hoping to get people—in particular, designers—into a new thought process. The authors of Cradle to Cradle are much more concerned with sustainability and human societies; and, as economies are the current evaluative tool of choice, setting goals to be met, rather than an abstract method to be taught, allows for the evolution of a new set of evaluative standards.
I can't even believe I wrote that. Apparently when I stay up late (and then only get 1.5 hours of sleep) my brain transfers function from "ability to form coherent sentences and thought patterns" to "creative but wildly ridiculous thought patterns".
IDEK