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)
Some people try to avoid the politics of this subject. That seems unwise - there are reasons why 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.
[edit] Not Lyn Margulis
See: Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature by Janine Benyus
also go to: http://www.biomimicry.org
[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)
