Hannah Howland (Pyatok), Vadim Keyser (California State University, Fresno)
Current philosophy of science literature focuses on the relations between natural, experimental, and technological systems. Our aim is to extend philosophical analysis to engineering and architectural systems. The purpose of our discussion is to re-conceptualize what it means for an engineered system to be ‘biomimetic’. We argue that biomimicry is a process that requires establishing a heteromorphic relation between 2 systems: a robust natural system and a robust engineered system. We develop a visual schematic that embeds natural and biomimetic systems, and we support our argument with a visual schematic case study of the woodpecker by showing the step-by-step process of biomimicry.
A recent trend in engineering and architecture is that so-called “biomimetic systems” are modeled after natural systems. Specifically, structural and functional components of the engineered system are designed to mimic system components in natural phenomena. For example, bird bone structures both in nature and in engineering effectively respond to force load. Such structures in nature are robust in that they maintain structural integrity with changing conditions. The bird bone remains resilient with increase in compressive stress; but also, the femur bones seem to maintain robustness of structure even at different scales—maintaining constant safety factors across a large size range.
While such robust properties are evident in natural systems, we argue that there has been a failure to properly model the same kind of robustness in engineered systems.
We argue that this failure of modeling is due to misconceptions about ‘biomimicry’ and ‘robustness’:
Using the philosophical literature on representation and modeling, we show that biomimicry requires establishing a heteromorphic relation between 2 systems: a robust natural system and a robust design system.
Additionally, we argue that in order to establish an adequate concept of ‘biomimicry’, engineering and architecture should consider a different conception of ‘robustness’. Using the philosophy of biology literature on ‘robustness’, we argue that robust systems are those that maintain responsiveness to external and internal perturbations. We present a visual schematic to show the continuum of robust systems in nature and engineering.
By using visual examples from natural systems and engineered systems we show that so-called “biomimetic systems” fail to establish such a relation. The reason why is because most of these engineered systems focus on symbolic association and aesthetic characteristics. We categorize these focal points of failed biomimetic engineering and design in terms of ‘bio-utilization’ and ‘biophilia’.
We conclude with the suggestion that these re-conceptualizations of ‘biomimicry’ and ‘robustness’ will be useful for: 1) Pushing the fields of engineering and architecture to make more precise the relations between natural and engineered systems; and 2) Developing new analytical perspectives about ‘mimetic’ systems in philosophy of science.
