Designing Research (M) ARCH 7042 | 2025
BUILDING AS NATURE BUILDS
Restoring Balance through Biomimicry
Design and Nature
G2.1.St2
Allynna Sue Mae Tan
Vannice Wing Tsum Ng
Concern:
‘The human might be the only species to have systematically designed its own extinction, and seems to be close to accomplishing the goal. Yet it largely act as if it cannot do anything about it’.
- Beatriz Colomina & Mark Wigley
Solution:
‘Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but what we can learn from it’.
- Janine Benyus
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
Position
Introduction Argument
Perspective
Field of Research
Context
Method Sources
Discussion Approach
Argument 1
Argument 2
Conclusion
Findings
Future Directions
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Summary
Biomimicry has emerged as a contested field of research offering alternatives to unsustainable design. As environmental crises expose the failures of extractive practices, architecture is re-examined as both a contributor and a potential remedy for ecological degradation. We argue that biomimicry offers a systemic shift in architectural thinking by emulating nature’s adaptive and cyclical strategies, enabling design to operate in reciprocity rather than dominance. We also argue that while biomimicry presents promising models for regeneration, its potential is undermined by superficial applications that neglect ecological function and ethical integration. We conclude that biomimicry repositions architecture as a restorative ecological force.
Figure 1:
1. POSITION
Introduction
Human design presents a paradox as it is both a testament to human creativity and a key driver of ecological decline. In Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design, Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley describe humans as ‘designing animals’ who have created overlapping systems that increasingly undermine our own survival.1 They assert, ‘the human might be the only species to have systematically designed its own extinction’,2 a stark critique that reveals the self-destructive tendencies embedded in modern design.
Against this backdrop, Janine Benyus, a leading figure in the field of modern biomimicry, offers an alternative vision in Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. Rather than viewing nature as something to dominate or improve, Benyus asserts that the natural world, refined through 3.8 billion years of evolution, offers tested solutions to the same challenges humans face today, such as resource efficiency, resilience, and sustainability.3 This perspective challenges anthropocentric design, where aesthetics and functionality often overshadow ecological impact. While Colomina and Wigley’s critique exposes the consequences of a design culture rooted in extraction and control, Benyus’s vision suggests a restorative path forward, where design learns from and collaborates with nature. The intersection of these perspectives frames biomimicry as both a design technique and an ethical response to modern design’s failures.
Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley, 2016, Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design (Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers), 6. Colomina and Wigley, 2016, 15. Janine Benyus, 1997, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature (New York: HarperCollins).
3
Argument
In our research, we argue that biomimicry offers a systemic shift in architectural thinking by emulating nature’s adaptive and cyclical strategies, enabling design to operate in reciprocity rather than dominance. This shift requires reimagining architecture as a participant within, rather than an imposition upon, ecological systems. Benyus frames this shift as a profound moral and practical imperative, stating that ‘perhaps in the end, it will not be a change in technology that will bring us to the biomimetic future, but a change of heart’.4 This insight underlines our position that technical innovation alone is insufficient to resolve the environmental crises we face. By studying and applying these principles, biomimicry encourages a transition in human activity from extraction and depletion toward modes of living and building that align with ecological systems. This approach reflects a deeper recognition that human survival is contingent upon respecting and working with the logic of the natural world. As Benyus emphasises, by emulating nature’s brilliance, we create opportunities to safeguard both the planet and ourselves.5 When thoughtfully applied, biomimicry can reshape how we design materials, products, buildings, and infrastructure, embedding ecological health as a priority rather than a secondary afterthought. We contend that human creativity must evolve from a force of depletion into a tool for renewal and restoration.
Figure 2:
Additionally, we also argue that while biomimicry presents promising models for regeneration, its transformative potential is often compromised by superficial applications that overlook ecological function and lack ethical integration. In contemporary design practices, human needs and aesthetics remain dominant priorities, often at the expense of deeper ecological awareness. Henry Dicks cautions that biomimicry must be grounded in an ethical framework if it is to avoid becoming a mere technical or commercial tool.6 Rather than treating nature as a catalogue of solutions, he urges designers to understand ‘the distinctive way of being of the entity’.7 We concur that this perspective demands ecological literacy and ethical humility, challenging the prevailing design paradigm that reduces nature to a passive resource. As Sarah Robinson notes, the nest is more than a metaphor as it is an expression of how functionality and beauty can emerge from reciprocal relationships with the environment.8 Integrating biomimicry into architectural practice, then, is not a stylistic choice but a systemic shift that repositions architecture as an active agent in restoring ecological balance.
Notes 4 5 6 7 8
Benyus, 1997, 8. Benyus, 1997, 296. Henry Dicks, 2023, The Biomimicry Revolution: Learning from Nature How to Inhabit the Earth (New York: Columbia University Press). Dicks, 2023, 174. Sarah Robinson and Juhani Pallasmaa, 2011, Nesting: Body, Dwelling, Mind (California: William Stout Publishers), 3.
2. PERSPECTIVE
Field of Research
The field of biomimicry is an evolving interdisciplinary framework that studies and emulates nature’s time-tested strategies to solve human challenges sustainably. Derived from the Greek words bios (life) and mimesis (to imitate),9 biomimicry emerged from earlier concepts such as ‘biomimetics,’ coined by Otto Schmitt in the 1950s, and ‘bionics,’ introduced by Jack Steele in 1960.10 While earlier approaches focused on replicating biological mechanisms for technological advancement, biomimicry has since developed into a design philosophy grounded in ecological integration. Its growth was significantly shaped by Benyus, who formalised the discipline through six guiding questions spanning sectors such as food production, energy, manufacturing, medicine, information systems, and economics.11
The philosophical dimension of this shift is further developed by Henry Dicks in The Biomimicry Revolution: Learning from Nature How to Inhabit the Earth. Dicks presents biomimicry as both a cultural and ontological evolution, moving beyond theocentric and anthropocentric traditions in which God, and later Man, served as the primary reference points for design.12 Instead, nature itself becomes the ethical and epistemological standard. This repositions biomimicry not only as a technical methodology but also as a philosophical and ethical commitment.
As the field has matured, biomimicry has progressed from practical innovation to a systems-based design philosophy. This evolution is especially evident in architecture, where Benyus’s question ‘How will we make things?’ becomes foundational.13 It prompts a rethinking of materials, processes, and structures that reflect the regenerative logic of natural systems. In this context, biomimicry in architecture is less about copying nature’s appearance and more about aligning the built environment with ecological principles.
3:
9 10 11 12 13
1997, 1. Julian F.V. Vincent, 2006, ‘Biomimetics: Its Practice and Theory’, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3(9), 471–482. Benyus, 1997, 7. Dicks, 2023, 14. Benyus, 1997, 95. Notes
Benyus,
Figure
Context
While Benyus offers the theoretical foundation of biomimicry and Dicks provides its philosophical grounding, Michael Pawlyn advances the conversation into architecture through his book Biomimicry in Architecture. Drawing from biology and ecology, Pawlyn reframes architecture as a regenerative practice capable of restoring the rift between human systems and the natural world.14 He translates conceptual ideas of biomimicry into built form, bridging the gap between abstract principle and applied design.
Complementing the architectural perspective, Pawlyn introduces Julian Vincent who offers a scientific lens that deepens the understanding of how nature achieves high performance with minimal resource use. Vincent’s axiom, ‘materials are expensive, shape is cheap’, underscores nature’s preference for geometry and structural optimisation over mass.15 Examples like the sea urchin’s spined skeleton and the intricate lattice of the Venus flower basket demonstrate how organisms achieve strength and efficiency through form rather than volume (Figure 4).16 These insights are critical to our argument that biomimicry can revolutionise architectural practice by aligning design with nature’s reciprocal systems.
Figure 4: Porous microstructure of a sea urchin skeleton (top) and the intricate lattice of a Venus flower basket (below). Source: Pawlyn, 2016.
This potential becomes evident in several projects that Pawlyn references to illustrate biomimicry’s architectural relevance. The Eden Project in Cornwall exemplifies the integration of biology and design. Inspired by plant cell membranes, its domes employ ETFE cushions to create lightweight, thermally efficient enclosures that adjust to Cornwall’s variable climate.17 These biomimetic systems regulate light, heat, and airflow, allowing the structures to function more like organisms than inert buildings, reinforcing the idea that architecture can function as dynamic participants in ecosystems.
Beijing’s National Aquatics Centre, the Water Cube, similarly translates nature’s intelligence into architectural form by mimicking the geometry of soap bubbles. Its polyhedral steel frame and ETFE cladding minimise surface area while maximising internal volume, reducing artificial lighting needs by 55% (Figure 5).18 This design embodies both structural efficiency and environmental responsiveness. As Pawlyn notes, ‘biomimetic design can deliver important innovation and biomorphic design can convey meaning’, illustrating how nature’s self-organising principles can be both functional and expressive.19
Together, these projects demonstrate that biomimicry in architecture is not an abstract ideal but an actionable framework. They reflect a shift toward regenerative systems and challenge the long-standing separation between human design and nature. By aligning biological function with human needs through form, process, and environmental context, these projects dismantle the false dichotomy between built and natural environments. They support our argument that designing in alignment with nature’s logic is both possible and essential for achieving reciprocity.
Figure 5: Geometry inspired by soap bubbles, using a polyhedral steel frame and translucent ETFE cladding. Source: Abo Elazm, Saad, 2017.
19
Michael Pawlyn, 2016, Biomimicry in Architecture, 2nd ed. (London: RIBA Publishing). Pawlyn, 2016, 9. Pawlyn, 2016, 22-27. Pawlyn, 2016, 38-43. Miguel Chen Austin, Kevin Araque, Paola Palacios, Katherine Rodríguez Maure, and Dafni Mora, 2022, ‘Numerical Assessment of Zebra-Stripes-Based Strategies in Buildings Energy Performance: A Case Study under Tropical Climate’, Biomimetics 7(1), 24. Pawlyn, 2016, 22.
3. APPROACH
Method
Our research investigates biomimicry’s evolution through archival analysis of published texts and case studies, tracing how this design paradigm has emerged, been interpreted, and applied over time. We engaged with seminal texts, such as Benyus’s book, which popularised the term and framed it within an ecological and interdisciplinary context. From there, our archival research extended to more recent contributions, including the works of Dicks and Pawlyn to chart the field’s philosophical and architectural evolution. This progression allowed us to map how biomimicry has evolved from a speculative concept into an increasingly structured design methodology.
Furthermore, we employed a theoretical approach to explore biomimicry’s current discourse. We examined the ideas and arguments presented in the literature to gain new insights about the possibilities and limitations of biomimicry in architectural design. Additionally, we conducted qualitative and analytical research to understand how biomimicry is framed in theory and practice. These strategies allowed us to synthesise a body of literature that is rich in disciplinary insight and capable of supporting a rigorous and critical analysis.
Sources
Our exploration of biomimicry draws on a multidisciplinary body of literature that collectively frames it as a theoretical, philosophical, and architectural response to the challenges of modern design. Central to this inquiry are three key texts: Benyus’s Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, Dicks’s The Biomimicry Revolution, and Pawlyn’s Biomimicry in Architecture. These texts form a conceptual triad, offering biological foundations, philosophical ethics, and practical architectural strategies with built precedents.
Benyus’s work anchors the modern biomimicry movement, presenting nature as model, measure, and mentor that guides a shift from extractive to regenerative design.20 Her six guiding questions prompt reflection on biomimicry’s transformative potential across disciplines, with ‘How will we make things?’21 becoming foundational in architectural contexts. This framing encourages a systemic approach to design that prioritises ecological alignment, making Benyus’s text essential to our theoretical grounding.
Expanding this perspective, Dicks situates biomimicry within ecological philosophy. He critiques the anthropocentric assumptions embedded in modern design and calls for epistemological humility, where design learns with nature, rather than merely imitating it.22 This shift demands a deeper philosophical reorientation away from human dominance toward ecological interdependence. Dicks emphasises that true biomimicry must reflect nature’s systemic intelligence rather than replicate isolated traits.23 His distinction between imitation and emulation strengthens our critique of superficial applications and provides ethical depth to our argument.
20 21 22 23
Notes
Benyus, 1997, 1. Benyus, 1997, 95. Dicks, 2023, 10-14. Dicks, 2023, 112-114.
Pawlyn builds on these frameworks by translating biomimetic principles into architectural practice. His work operationalises Benyus’s theoretical ideas and Dick’s ethical urgency through case studies such as the Eden Project and the Sahara Forest Project, which integrate adaptive responses to climate, closed-loop material systems, and biologically informed forms.24 Pawlyn’s contribution situates our research in the built environment, demonstrating that biomimicry can offer more than conceptual guidance as it is a viable architectural methodology capable of reconfiguring the relationship between buildings and ecosystems.
To deepen and contextualise these core texts, our research engages journal articles that both support and interrogate biomimicry’s application in architecture. These sources move beyond surface-level narratives to explore its successes and evaluate the tensions within biomimetic discourse. For instance, Abo Elazm and Saad examine how the Beijing Water Cube’s cellular geometry, inspired by natural marine structures, enhances thermal and structural performance.25 Similarly, Knebel et al. document how the Eden Project’s ETFE domes replicate plant cell membranes, reducing material use while improving environmental responsiveness.26 These case studies provide applied validation for our argument that biomimicry can shift architectural thinking toward reciprocity.
Figure 6:
Alongside these affirmations, our research also engages critical literature that supports our second argument. Verbrugghe et al. identify conceptual ambiguities in the field, noting a persistent lack of clarity around definitions and methodologies.27 Similarly, based on interviews with practitioners, Jones et al. identify significant barriers to implementation that prevent meaningful collaboration between designers and scientists.28 These critiques expose a gap between biomimicry’s ideals and its practice.
Together, these sources provide not only theoretical grounding and case-based evidence but also critical evaluation of biomimicry’s claims. Benyus articulates biomimicry’s conceptual promise, Dicks interrogates its ethical dimension, and Pawlyn demonstrates its architectural realisation. The supporting literature builds a discursive field in which these views are tested, extended, and in some cases, challenged. These sources lead into our discussion, where we synthesise these positions to examine how biomimicry can guide architecture toward reciprocal relationships with ecosystems, while avoiding superficial interpretations of nature.
Pawlyn, 2016, 31-43, 125-131. Faysal M Abo Elazm and Basma Saad, 2017, ‘Towards Novel and Appropriate Smart Buildings Beijing Water Cube’, International Journal of Environmental Science 2, 14.
Klaus Knebel, Jaime Sanchez-Alvarez and St. Zimmermann, 2001, ‘The Eden Project: Design, Fabrication and Assembly of the Largest Greenhouse of the World’, Der Stahlbau 70(8), 513–525. Nathalie Verbrugghe, Eleonora Rubinacci and Ahmed Z. Khan, 2023, ‘Biomimicry in Architecture: A Review of Definitions, Case Studies, and Design Methods’, Biomimetics 8(1), 107.
Rory V. Jones, Alba Fuertes, Roman Scherer and Derek Clements-Croome, 2024, ‘Opinion: Applications of and Barriers to the Use of Biomimicry towards a Sustainable Architectural, Engineering and Construction Industry Based on Interviews from Experts and Practitioners in the Field’, Biomimetics 9(8), 470.
4. DISCUSSION
Argument 1
We argue that biomimicry offers a systemic shift in architectural thinking by emulating nature’s adaptive and cyclical strategies, allowing design to operate in reciprocity rather than dominance. Benyus introduces biomimicry as a radical rethinking of human design, one that urges us to view and value nature not just as a source of raw materials, but as a source of ideas.29 She frames this shift as both moral and methodological, grounded in the premise that ‘life creates conditions conducive to life’.30 At its core, her proposal calls for a shift in thinking, where in the context of architecture, buildings are conceived not to control or exploit nature, but to learn from its evolutionary wisdom. These principles support our argument that biomimicry offers more than mere aesthetics as it proposes a new kind of architectural thinking that aligns with ecological systems.
As Benyus contends, ‘in a society accustomed to dominating or “improving” nature, this respectful imitation is a radically new approach’.31 Unlike traditional architecture, which often exploits nature, biomimicry learns from evolutionary innovation. This shift gains further urgency when read alongside Colomina and Wigley’s critique of humanity’s destructive design legacy.32 Their critique situates the need for a systemic shift in architectural thinking within a broader existential context.
Pawlyn advances this shift from concept to built form. Through case studies, he demonstrates how nature’s patterns can reposition architecture from linear to circular and static to adaptive. The Eden Project’s ETFE domes, inspired by the cellular geometry of plants, regulate heat and light through minimal material input, exemplifying nature’s principle of doing more with less. Pawlyn’s emphasis is not on superficial mimicry but a design ethic that reconfigures architecture to align with biological intelligence. Dicks expands this into an ethical imperative, framing biomimicry as ‘taking nature as model, and thereby imitating nature’.33 In this context, biomimicry becomes a framework not just for design innovation, but for redefining the human-nature relationship.
Nature’s strategies prioritise efficiency, adaptation, and closedloop systems. An effective example is the Water Cube in Beijing, whose structure mimics soap-bubble geometry, minimises materials while maximising daylight penetration.34 Rather than imposing rigid boundaries on the environment, the Water Cube demonstrates how buildings can adapt to and work with natural forces. This model of continual adaptation offers a tangible method for shifting architectural thinking from static optimisation to dynamic reciprocity, where buildings interact with their environment rather than merely withstand it.
Benyus, 1997, 2. Benyus, 1997, 254. Benyus, 1997, 2. Colomina and Wigley, 2016, 15. Dicks, 2023, 196. Abo Elazm and Saad, 2017, 16-18.
Biomimicry’s greatest potential lies in fostering reciprocity rather than dominance in human-environment relationships. Dicks defines the ethical core of this approach, arguing that biomimetic design must occur with nature, not merely like nature.35 This ethic reframes design as a collaborative process, positioning buildings not as isolated objects but as active ecological participants. Benyus reinforces this perspective by highlighting Indigenous knowledge systems, such as Masanobu Fukuoka’s ‘do-nothing’ farming.36 She notes that this method, which ‘joined in alliance with nature’s wisdom,’ rejects unnecessary human intervention.37 Such practices validate our argument that reciprocity is not passivity, but an active commitment to ecological balance.
Ultimately, biomimicry redefines architecture as a regenerative practice, but its success depends on the depth and quality of its emulation, moving beyond form to embed functional and systemic intelligence. As Benyus reminds us, ‘the real survivors are the Earth inhabitants that have lived millions of years without consuming their ecological capital’.38 To design for the future, architecture must learn from these survivors.
Argument 2
We also argue that while biomimicry presents promising models for regeneration, its potential is often compromised by superficial applications that overlook ecological function and ethical integration. As Verbrugghe et al. observe, ‘the lack of methodological clarity and a clear and consistent definition’39 has created a field marked by fragmentation and ambiguity, where it seems straightforward in theory, yet ‘in practice, or in methodological terms, not so much’.40 This conceptual vagueness has allowed biomimicry to be misinterpreted as a stylistic approach, often resulting in projects that superficially replicate the surface features of nature such as fractal façades or termite-mound inspired ventilation systems without achieving their adaptive or regenerative functions. The result is a pattern of visually engaging but ecologically inert designs.
Vitalis and Chayaamor-Heil reinforce this concern by identifying a disciplinary divide between architects and biologists, asserting that ‘architects are generally not trained as scientists and biologists generally not as designers’.41 This disconnect results in mismatched expectations and design outcomes that fall short of biomimicry’s regenerative promises. Dicks critiques this trend as ‘contemporary attempts to be “green”’.42 When biomimicry is decoupled from its functional origins, it risks losing credibility and becoming an agent of greenwashing. Instead, Dicks calls for a model in which nature is approached as a collaborator rather than a resource, and where design contributes to ‘the habitability of the earth for its living inhabitants’.43
Figure 7:
Dicks, 2023, 10-14. Benyus, 1997, 36. Benyus, 1997, 37. Benyus, 1997, 9. Verbrugghe et al., 2023, 2. Verbrugghe et al., 2023, 24. Louis Vitalis and Natasha Chayaamor-Heil, 2022, ‘Forcing Biological Sciences into Architectural Design: On Conceptual Confusions in the Field of Biomimetic Architecture’, Frontiers of Architectural Research 11(2), 179–190. Dicks, 2023, 248. Dicks, 2023, 238.
Beyond superficial form, overlooking ecological function further undermines the regenerative potential of biomimicry. Dicks argues that true biomimicry involves imitating ‘not some trait or other abstracted from an entity and then taken as model, but rather the distinctive way of being of the entity’.44 This distinction reframes biomimicry from the replication of shapes to the emulation of ecological logic and process. Benyus reinforces this, noting that nature ‘runs on sunlight, uses only the energy it needs, fits form to function and recycles everything’.45 These principles present a suite of functional criteria that should guide architectural performance. However, many architectural designs that claim biomimetic inspiration reveal a shallowness in practice, where symbolic resemblance replaces actual emulation of nature’s adaptive intelligence.
Dicks stresses that ‘natural ecosystems are probably the most important source of functions for biomimetic design,’46 citing examples such as nutrient cycling, adaptive thermoregulation, and mutualistic interdependence.47 As Jones et al. report, architects face ‘high risks and costs of using non-standard approaches and technologies,’48 and must also contend with ‘fragmentation of the industry and silo thinking’.49 These systemic limitations force practitioners to revert to familiar systems, even when the intention is to innovate. Thus, biomimicry is frequently positioned as an aspirational label rather than an operational ecological strategy.
Most significantly, the absence of a robust ethical integration further restricts biomimicry’s transformative capacity. Dicks critiques the tendency of biomimicry to be instrumentalised, warning that without a ‘coherent philosophical system,’50 biomimicry risks perpetuating exploitative paradigms that continue to treat nature as an ‘immaterial resource’.51 He instead advocates for a design ethic grounded in humility, reciprocity, and long-term planetary stewardship.52 This ethical grounding challenges architects and designers to move beyond humancentered optimisation. Without this humility and reciprocal approach, biomimicry risks becoming extractive, but with it, it can drive resilience and restoration across ecological systems.
The discussion reaches a turning point in considering how biomimicry can address its limitations by grounding itself in ethics, systems thinking, and genuine interdisciplinarity. Pawlyn’s work exemplifies functional biomimicry, aligning energy flows, material cycles, and thermoregulation with biological systems to produce regenerative outcomes.53 Reorienting biomimicry toward systemic and ethical foundations is not merely conceptual but essential. As Benyus reflects, a sustainable future will not hinge on ‘a change in technology’ alone, but also from ‘a change of heart’.54 This insight reinforces our argument that biomimicry must be guided by empathy, respect, and reciprocity to move beyond superficial imitation and redefine architecture as ecologically accountable.
Dicks, 2023, 174. Benyus, 1997, 7. Dicks, 2023, 113. Dicks, 2023, 106. Jones et al., 2024, 13. Jones et al., 2024, 9. Dicks, 2023, 250. Dicks, 2023, 169. Dicks, 2023, 166. Pawlyn, 2016, 31-43. Benyus, 1997, 8.
5. CONCLUSION
Findings
Our research explores biomimicry as a transformative architectural framework capable of shifting design from an anthropocentric, extractive model to one based on ecological reciprocity. Through the combined lenses of Benyus’s ecological principles, Dicks’s ethical philosophy, and Pawlyn’s architectural applications, we established that biomimicry offers a regenerative alternative to the dominant extractive models of building that positions architecture as a participant in sustaining life, rather than a force of depletion.
However, we highlighted that the transformative potential of biomimicry is often compromised by superficial applications that prioritise visual resemblance over ecological and ethical integration. Through our review of literature and case studies, we identified conceptual vagueness, disciplinary fragmentation, and technological barriers as recurring challenges that dilute biomimicry’s intended impact. As our discussion revealed, the success of biomimicry depends not only on what is mimicked, but on how and why, requiring ecological literacy, systems thinking, and moral accountability. Ultimately, biomimicry is not a design aesthetic but a paradigm that redefines architecture as an ecological participant.
8:
Figure
Future Directions
As the field continues to evolve, biomimicry is expanding into new territories that reflect contrasting but complementary paradigms. On one side, researchers such as Neri Oxman extend the discourse through digital fabrication and algorithmic design, proposing in her concept of ‘material ecology’ a fusion of nature, technology, and humanity. Through advancements in 3D printing and responsive materials, Oxman demonstrates how structures are computationally grown from biological logic rather than imposed geometry. This high-tech trajectory of biomimicry suggests that technological innovation can extend the principles of biomimicry into new frontiers. In contrast, Julia Watson’s Lo–TEK: Design by Radical Indigenism reframes biomimicry through Indigenous ecological knowledge developed over centuries in balance with natural systems. Watson documents architectural and infrastructural systems that exemplify deep ecological intelligence without reliance on modern computation, offering innovation through ancestral reciprocity and environmental ethics.
Together, Oxman and Watson represent an inflection point in biomimicry, where technologies and ancestral practices are not opposed, but can be synthesised. For the future of biomimicry to be truly regenerative, it must embrace both speculative technologies and ancestral wisdom. The question is no longer what we can extract from nature, but how we can co-create with it. In doing so, biomimicry evolves into a pluralistic worldview capable of bridging divergent knowledge systems toward a shared ecological future.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Benyus, Janine. 1997. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: HarperCollins.
Dicks, Henry. 2023. The Biomimicry Revolution: Learning from Nature How to Inhabit the Earth. New York: Columbia University Press.
Pawlyn, Michael. 2016. Biomimicry in Architecture. 2nd ed. London: RIBA Publishing.
Secondary Sources
Abo Elazm, Faysal M. and Basma Saad. 2017. ‘Towards Novel and Appropriate Smart Buildings “Beijing Water Cube”.’ International Journal of Environmental Science 2: 14.
Chayaamor-Heil, Natasha. 2023. ‘From Bioinspiration to Biomimicry in Architecture: Opportunities and Challenges.’ Encyclopedia 3(1): 202–223.
Chen Austin, Miguel, Kevin Araque, Paola Palacios, Katherine Rodríguez Maure, and Dafni Mora. 2022. ‘Numerical Assessment of Zebra-Stripes-Based Strategies in Buildings Energy Performance: A Case Study under Tropical Climate.’ Biomimetics 7(1): 14.
Colomina, Beatriz and Mark Wigley. 2016. Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers.
Jones, Rory V., Alba Fuertes, Roman Scherer, and Derek Clements-Croome. 2024. ‘Opinion: Applications of and Barriers to the Use of Biomimicry towards a Sustainable Architectural, Engineering and Construction Industry Based on Interviews from Experts and Practitioners in the Field.’ Biomimetics 9(8): 470.
Knebel, Klaus, Jaime Sanchez-Alvarez, and St. Zimmermann. 2001. ‘The Eden Project: Design, Fabrication and Assembly of the Largest Greenhouse of the World.’ Der Stahlbau 70(8): 513–525.
Robinson, Sarah and Juhani Pallasmaa. 2011. Nesting: Body, Dwelling, Mind. California: William Stout Publishers.
Verbrugghe, Nathalie, Eleonora Rubinacci, and Ahmed Z. Khan. 2023. ‘Biomimicry in Architecture: A Review of Definitions, Case Studies, and Design Methods.’ Biomimetics 8(1): 107.
Vincent, Julian F.V. 2006. ‘Biomimetics: Its Practice and Theory.’ Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3(9): 471–482.
Vitalis, Louis and Natasha Chayaamor-Heil. 2022. ‘Forcing Biological Sciences into Architectural Design: On Conceptual Confusions in the Field of Biomimetic Architecture.’ Frontiers of Architectural Research 11(2): 179–190.