Talk:Biomimicry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The introductory part of this article seems like a book advertising. Chmyr (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Couldn't agree more. Pure advertising.
existing economic systems do not reward efficiency as an absolute value, and they do seem to have to do with the difficulty of large scale cooperation.
The "reach" here is the assertion that Darwin is remembered mostly for ecological selection not sexual selection "because" of Victorian mores.
If someone wants to rewrite that, I won't object, but the idea that natural selection consists only of ecological selection has never been valid at all. Modern biologists are starting to believe that sexual selection matters more.
"Proponents argue that all natural life forms minimize and ecological niches remove failures."
This is not a sensible sentence. Could someone who knows what the intended meaning is please rewrite it?
2004/08/15: Can someone provide the source for "its later codification as a field of study to Lynn Margulis."? I have not found any reference that Lynn wrote on the subject of Biomimicry.
Contents
[edit] Not Lyn Margulis
See: Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature by Janine Benyus
also go to: http://www.biomimicry.org
Seriously, Janine Benyus did not introduce this concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.175.108 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merger
Biomimicry really should be a unique entry in Wikipedia.
As a current MBA candidate at Bainbridge Graduate Institute studying this important field in sustainability, I must argue against merging biomimicry with bionics. While I have not been able to cite all the current literary references to biomimicry a simple search on Amazon results in three (3) pages of books, music and other works citing the term.
Amazon Search Results of Biomimicry.
Biomimicry is clearly a major field of science in its own right and bionics is too easily confused with Prosthetic Enhancement, the bionic man and the bionic woman (inaccurate or unscholarly as that may be) it is human nature to think of bionics in this manner. If Wikipedia is meant to teach people about the true meaning of its encyclopedia entries, then it's important we keep biomimicry separate so they have a better opportunity to learn about this important emerging field.
Thank you for keeping this entry unique.
Toddrawlings (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, there is enough information specifically on engineering solutions to explicitly copy biological systems to justify a full article. Probably if this article is expanded to cover more general uses that will become self-evident. I also changed the section heading to not support any position on the topic of merging, in accordance with the Talk page guidelines.
Biomimicry is unique from bionics and bi-inspired design in that in addition to learning from nature for inspiration, we also learn from nature for ecological principles of sustainability.
[edit] Oppose
I, too, think that biomimicry , although currently in its infancy, is going to be extremely important in the years and centuries to come. It is unique and should not be lumped together with bionics. This new paradigm in engineering, architecture, materials science, and agriculture is going to help usher in the New Industrial Revolution and has the potential to save our race from destroying the planet that we call home. Blueelectricstorm (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Agree
I agree it should be merged, maybe not with Bionics, as that term apparently has two different meaning, so it can be confusing, so I think it should be merged with Biomimetics. I really wonder why the term Biomimicry was created as it has the exact same etymological origin so it seems. It would be interesting to hear somebody explain why that was done other then for marketing purposes for the book and the consulting firm. Especially calling it a "new field in science" sounds a bit off to me, thinking about Gaudi, Da Vinci, Colani etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.53.146 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggest Merger: Suggested Reasons
At the outset I must suggest that Bionics should have a disambiguation page with bionics as referring to prosthesis etc. being separated from bionics as referring to biomimetics. Google bionics today and top results refer to the former despite it being a more recent usage of the word. As for biomimicry, my understanding is that it has a specific insistance of 'sustainabilty' over bionics (look at Janine M. Benyus/biomimicryinstitute.org website and other media). Bionic solution uses nature for inspiration not considering sustainability as a guiding light. e.g. Neural networks in Computers has no relation to sustainablity.
[edit] Oppose merger-other issues
Agree with other posters that the intro is unbalanced. Benyus deserves ample credit as one who has raised the issue in the public eye, but there are quite a number of other groups that have been active in making fundamental and systematic contributions overe the years. Julian Vincent, George Jeronimides, Steven Vogel come to mind, as well as the organizations Bionis and the EU Biofutures program. Additionally, the link to sustainability is not universally accepted. Although clearly important, and a major thread through Benyus' writing and work, quite a few people use biomimetics for innovative engineering design. Indeed-this is implicitly acknowledged in the current wiki via the reference to the bat cane. Innovative yes, geared to sustainability, no. The present wiki reflects one contributer's idea, not the consensus of the state of the field.
Second, I also oppose the merger. Bionics, although not strictly defined, is more associated with engineering interventions in the human body-such may or may not be biomimetic (if the defining property here is the use of a biological principle). Again, it is not an issue with regard to an emphasis on sustainability or sustainability as an enpoint, as has been suggested.
