Hello again,
Terence- I have been primarily researching fundamental design literature
and have not branched out very far into other disciplines and their
readings yet (this was very much deliberate). I assume i will be diving
into other areas of research outside of design through this topic and i
thank you for those links
Elmarie- I would be very grateful if you shared the results from your
project
Birger- I wholeheartedly agree with your opinions. There are many different
levels of biomimic design. As you stated: "*But at the same time I am
sceptical. At least I think your endeavour needs a well developed
criticality*" - this is the reason why i find this topic most appropriate
for PhD research. It requires in-depth, thorough, critical analysis. It is
not something that can be simply transcribed quickly and without thought,
otherwise (as you said) it will result in superficial solutions.
In response to your concern regarding the adaptation of natural
organisms/societies to ours, this will require careful interpretation.
"*The other thing that needs criticality is the approach to nature itself
as something good and harmonic." *I do not believe nature is harmonic, but
i do believe we are not living in harmony *with* nature. If we were
evolving in cohesion with our environment, we would not be suffering from
an impending sustainable crisis. We are operating almost completely
independent to it. This may be how our species should naturally evolve (and
perhaps we *are* destined to become extinct) but since we are thinking,
understanding, empathetic living beings we have the power and advantage of
logic and intellect to understand our place, our future- and try to change
it. This is what separates us from the animal world.
You concurred with this logic in your statement: "*So our ability of being
good and taking care of each other is biologically programmed and is one of
the advantages we have as a species and that contributed to our dominance.
(We are not the only species that does have social behaviour as an
advantage but ours is most developed)."*
*
*
You also added:
"*There are many other types of interaction but eating each other is the
dominant one."*
I hope that no one on this list is under the impression i am going to **
directly** translate biological activities into our humane society! This is
where interpretation is key. "A preying mantis will bite off a male's head
for sustenance after copulation" can translate into "a pregnant woman
should ensure she is well fed for the health of her unborn child". It is
about understanding how and why the natural world operates and knowing how
to adapt these operations into our logical, conscious and humane society.
So in response to your question about how we can adapt information on ant
colonies, etc, i do not have an answer yet. My gut feeling is that i will
need to find a natural system that either most obviously relates to
service/strategic design or natural phenomena which operates in innovative
ways towards specific tasks that can be interpreted and applied for our
benefit- but all the while maintaining as much purity of this process (so
not to become superficial) as possible and attempting to utilise this
information for sustainability.
This is a large topic to take but i believe after 4.54 billion years nature
has learned a thing or two about sustaining life. And it might result in
just simple inspiration for different modes of operation that aren't
explicitly biomimicry, but if something useful, sustainable and innovative
can come out of this sort of research then it has achieved what it set out
to.
Besides, was it Michio Kaku or Einstein who described the natural world as
a "library"?
Thank you all for your insightful responses,
-Stefanie
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Costandius, Elmarie <[log in to unmask]> <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Stephanie and Birger
>
> I am planning to do a project with second year students from 13-31 August
> investigating bio-mimicry, but with a focus on how it can help us socially
> or politically, such as informing social systems. I am curious to see what
> will come out of the project and will share the results with you.
>
> Best regards
> Elmarie
>
>
> On 2012/07/12 10:54 AM, "Birger Ragnvald Sevaldson"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Dear Stefanie
> >I am very curious about the idea of using bio-mimicry to gain knowledge
> >about our society and as an inspiration for the design of human activity
> >systems like we find in service design, social design etc.
> >I think there is much superficial and uncritical bio-mimicry found even
> >in design. I have seen quite a few design projects that are of the
> >superficial type, e.g. looking like some part of nature, and that's it.
> >
> >I am excited about your ideas since they clearly are about looking deeper
> >into the issue.
> >But at the same time I am sceptical. At least I think your endeavour
> >needs a well developed criticality.
> >It would be interesting to know more about the ant example, of how we
> >could learn from such animal societies to derive something useful for our
> >own society. My spine reaction is immediately negative. We know for sure
> >that the individual does not count in these societies. We know that they
> >do not have democracy and that they are monitored by hormones and other
> >signals.
> >
> >The other thing that needs criticality is the approach to nature itself
> >as something good and harmonic. This belief in the good of nature, while
> >being un-harmful in copying certain aspects of nature to produce better
> >products, can be harmful when trying to copy certain larger principals of
> >nature, e.g. the survival of the fittest, to human society. Unnecessary
> >to say this type of "bio-mimicry" has been tried before with devastating
> >results.
> >
> >Nature is not good nor bad. Too much of the "bio-movement" at large lacks
> >criticality. Nature does not care about extinction of species, in fact
> >extinction of species is a principal element in the development of
> >life-forms. The basic principle of nature is not harmony. A principle in
> >nature is about the interaction between species mostly meaning they eat
> >each other. There are many other types of interaction but eating each
> >other is the dominant one. This interaction can form balancing stages (or
> >negative feedback loops) like the ambulating interdependency between a
> >predator and its bate. But this is not the same as harmony. Such
> >mechanisms can and have frequently led to a species getting the overhand
> >and leading to the extinction of others. So there are certain things in
> >nature we don't want to copy in a "gardened" world. In a gardened world
> >we do not let species being extinct, but we protect and breed them to
> >counteract the escalating extinction caused by one dominating species,
> >man. We are acting in a good way to protect other species and nature at
> >large.
> >
> >On the other side we are all nature, so the concept of good and bad,
> >politics, democracy, welfare systems, social security etc could also be
> >seen as developments in and of nature. There are theories that claim that
> >social behaviour, being good, and feeling love for each other do have a
> >biological bases and that these features are central in the dominance of
> >humans in the world. (Off course there are other important abilities also
> >biologically grounded, like being able to fight and kill). So our ability
> >of being good and taking care of each other is biologically programmed
> >and is one of the advantages we have as a species and that contributed to
> >our dominance. (We are not the only species that does have social
> >behaviour as an advantage but ours is most developed).
> >
> >I'm not a biologist nor an expert of bio-mimicry so this is anecdotal and
> >polemical and don't ask me for references please. The point is that we
> >have to be less naive and more critical and analytical about where and
> >what to look for when seeking inspiration in nature.
> >
> >You open up a very interesting discussion .
> >Thanks
> >Birger
> >
> >________________________________________
> >Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> >research in Design [[log in to unmask]] på vegne av stefanie
> >di russo [[log in to unmask]]
> >Sendt: 12. juli 2012 07:45
> >Til: [log in to unmask]
> >Emne: Re: Biomimicry, Service Design and Design Thinking
> >
> >Hi Terence,
> >
> >
> >I hope i have interpreted your question correctly, and will do my best to
> >answer (bearing in mind i have only recently begun research into this
> >topic
> >so i apologise if my response seems a little superficial).
> >
> >I will explain firstly why i diverted my research to this area and why.
> >Having spent the last year and a half collecting and analysing
> >research/articles/etc on design thinking, service design, human-centered
> >design and meta-design, i reduced my knowledge to a few simple
> >conclusions:
> >
> >1. there is no clear explanation of the relationship between these fields
> >of theory/practice. There was no clear 'history'- how these theories
> >evolved, why they evolved and how they evolved in context of design
> >literature. This led me to research design thinking heavily and work
> >backwards through fundamental design theories, resulting in an
> >(interpretation) of the history of design thinking which makes up most of
> >my literature review.
> >
> >2. Having looked at and somewhat clarified the past, i began to look
> >towards the future of design thinking- the problems and limitations of
> >current practice. At the same time i was concerned with the issue of
> >sustainability.
> >
> >3. Through current (and even historical) research, i realised there were a
> >few major problems with the practice of design thinking (including service
> >design/meta design). One problem is the issue of understanding between
> >designers and clients, and the adoption of design thinking in
> >organisational culture. The other primary problem I discovered was that
> >many design thinkers/serv designers/etc and business professionals were (
> >complaining) discussing the need for adaptable (and sustainable) strategic
> >solutions. Many articles and practitioners argued a need for more
> >adaptable
> >and evolving solutions but none pointed to ways of achieving this.
> >
> >Having already had an interest in biomimicry, i began to wonder whether
> >there lies an answer to these issues through this approach, and why
> >biomimetics has not been applied (to the same degree as industrial
> >design/engineering) as a method for resolving some of our intangible and
> >'wicked' problems.
> >
> >This is where things get a bit fuzzy. and brings me to your question:
> >
> >"Please could you say more about *your* reasoning as to why you feel the
> >methods for using bio-mimicry for design products is not applicable to
> >designing non-tangible design outcomes such as strategies, services etc.?"
> >
> >It is not so much that i feel current biomimetic methods are not
> >applicable. The difference i believe lies in how we interpret and
> >synthesise information from nature so we can best mimic and apply what we
> >observe into systems+services. Currently i have found some research papers
> >discussing intelligent system of colonies: ants, bees, etc, and how the
> >operations within these colonies can be directly translated into
> >organisational and system design. This is one approach: look at
> >intelligent, living systems that exist and interpet how best to mimic
> >their
> >organised nature for our own design outcomes. The other approach (that
> >some
> >have suggested to me) is a little more abstract- analysing the function of
> >prokaryotes, and with much creative interpretation, applying these
> >functions into strategic design solutions. The hopeful insight is that by
> >observing natural phenomena, we might be able to discover more efficient
> >and sustainable ways to function- and not just for our own benefit, but
> >function in harmony with nature.
> >
> >Designers have developed great products that directly mimic functions in
> >nature- most that are sustainable, some just innovative. My aim is to
> >apply
> >biomimetics to improve strategies that will hopefully result in more
> >efficient and sustainable ways of operating.
> >
> >I hope this answers your question and thank you for taking an interest
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >-Stefanie
> >
> >On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Stefanie,
> >>
> >> It's great you focus on the use of bio-mimicry in creating non-tangible
> >> design outcomes such as strategies, services and ways of thinking.
> >>
> >> Almost everyone else has primarily focused on using bio-mimicry only for
> >> designing products.
> >>
> >> I agree using bio-mimicry in designing non-tangible outcomes appears to
> >>be
> >> essentially different from using it for designing products.
> >>
> >> Please could you say more about *your* reasoning as to why you feel the
> >> methods for using bio-mimicry for design products is not applicable to
> >> designing non-tangible design outcomes such as strategies, services
> >>etc.?
> >>
> >> This is something that potentially has significant implications for
> >>design
> >> theory and research.
> >>
> >> It may add to the weight of evidence that existing design methods and
> >> theories are restricted in their application to a clearly bounded set of
> >> design situations. Additionally, it may imply that design situations
> >> outside those bounds require different ways of theorising about design
> >>and
> >> different design practices.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >> Terence
> >> ==
> >> Dr Terence Love, FDRS, PhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.E
> >> School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
> >> Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
> >> Honorary Fellow, IEED, Management School, Lancaster University, UK
> >>
> >> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
> >> [log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> >> ==
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> >>related
> >> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >> stefanie
> >> di russo
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2012 12:34 PM
> >> To: Dr Terence Love
> >> Subject: Biomimicry, Service Design and Design Thinking
> >>
> >> Greetings colleagues,
> >>
> >> I am currently conducting research on design thinking, service design
> >>and
> >> meta design for my PhD, with a focus on sustainability. I have recently
> >> begun to investigate the application of biomimicry within these fields
> >>of
> >> practice and research. I am aware of research surrounding biomimicry for
> >> designing material artefacts, but am attempting to source information
> >>and
> >> examples of biomimic research that has been adopted for the aid and/or
> >> resolution of intangible (for use of a better word) "wicked" problems -
> >>or
> >> in strategic fields of research and practice. A superficial scan of
> >>current
> >> research shows some progress has been made within business +
> >>organisational
> >> design- however i am particularly interested in examples from fields of
> >> service/systems and design thinking.
> >>
> >> I will gratefully appreciate any research and advice that can be
> >>offered on
> >> this topic, or which more broadly relates to the adoption of biomimic
> >> design
> >> for intangible problems and (ideally, sustainable) organisational
> >> solutions.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards,
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Stefanie Di Russo*
> >>
> >> PhD Student
> >> Faculty of Design
> >> Swinburne University
> >> *twitter:* @stefdirusso <https://twitter.com/#!/stefdirusso>
> >> *linkedin: public
> >> *profile<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefanie-di-russo/35/16/a84>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >*Stefanie Di Russo*
> >
> >PhD Student
> >Faculty of Design
> >Swinburne University
> >*twitter:* @stefdirusso <https://twitter.com/#!/stefdirusso>
> >*linkedin: public
> >*profile<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefanie-di-russo/35/16/a84>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> E-pos vrywaringsklousule Hierdie e-pos mag vertroulike inligting bevat en
> mag regtens geprivilegeerd wees en is slegs bedoel vir die persoon aan wie
> dit geadresseer is. Indien u nie die bedoelde ontvanger is nie, word u
> hiermee in kennis gestel dat u hierdie dokument geensins mag gebruik,
> versprei of kopieer nie. Stel ook asseblief die sender onmiddellik per
> telefoon in kennis en vee die e-pos uit. Die Universiteit aanvaar nie
> aanspreeklikheid vir enige skade, verlies of uitgawe wat voortspruit uit
> hierdie e-pos en/of die oopmaak van enige lêers aangeheg by hierdie e-pos
> nie. E-mail disclaimer This e-mail may contain confidential information and
> may be legally privileged and is intended only for the person to whom it is
> addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you
> may not use, distribute or copy this document in any manner whatsoever.
> Kindly also notify the sender immediately by telephone, and delete the
> e-mail. The University does not accept liability for any damage, loss or
> expense arising from this e-mail and/or accessing any files attached to
> this e-mail.
>
--
*Stefanie Di Russo*
PhD Student
Faculty of Design
Swinburne University
*twitter:* @stefdirusso <https://twitter.com/#!/stefdirusso>
*linkedin: public
*profile<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefanie-di-russo/35/16/a84>
|
