Evolution and Natural Selection for Nature-inspired Innovation: The importance of understanding evolutionary biology and ecology.
Effective nature-inspired innovation (or biomimicry) requires dialogue between designers and biologists, and this dialogue must be rooted in a shared scientific understanding of living systems. As the founder of the Biomimicry Innovation Lab, I've witnessed the transformative power of nature-inspired innovation. Our work is rooted in the understanding of organisms and living systems, and we believe that a shared scientific understanding of these systems can unlock unprecedented potential for designers, engineers, innovators and biologists alike.
Introduction
The field of nature-inspired innovation is a testament to the power of interdisciplinary collaboration. It thrives on effective communication between various disciplines, with biology central to its success. To maximise the chances of fruitful discourse, all those involved in the process must understand the fundamentals of biology. Therefore, biologists have an essential role in facilitating this comprehension.
However, it's important to note that our language when discussing organisms and living systems can shape our understanding. For instance, using "nature" as the subject of sentences can inadvertently suggest that nature is an active agent with inherent self-determination. In reality, nature is a series of phenomena, an extensive system of varied interactions that require interpretation through scientific inquiry.
This understanding is crucial for both designers and biologists. We can avoid flaws and miscalculations in developing nature-inspired bioinspired processes, products, and systems by truly grasping how nature operates. This shared understanding can also help us avoid anthropocentric notions that limit our ability to understand the living world by way of its processes and properties.
To illustrate the key differences between intentional human design and unintentional evolutionary processes, consider the following comparisons:
Some additional important points on avoiding anthropocentric language and notions when discussing nature:
Nature is not a causal agent or active entity with inherent intentions. It is a series of phenomena requiring scientific interpretation.
Humans are prone to cognitive biases like "hypersensitive agency detection" that lead us to attribute agency or purpose to nature.
Metaphors suggesting nature has "strategies, designs, plans" create intellectual obstacles and should be avoided.
In nature, form follows function through evolutionary processes, the opposite of human design which starts with an intended function.
Evolutionary processes have no predetermined objectives, unlike human design which is goal-oriented.
We can engage in more productive research and innovation inspired by nature’s true processes by grounding our understanding in evolutionary theory and avoiding anthropocentric framings.
Key Differences Between Intentional Human Design and Unintentional Evolutionary Processes
To understand the fundamental distinctions between human design and evolutionary processes, it's essential to examine their key characteristics side by side. This comparison highlights the importance of a shared scientific understanding when engaging in nature-inspired innovation.
-
Human designs are created with a specific purpose or function in mind, often to solve a particular problem or fulfil a defined need.
Evolution has no predetermined objective. Traits and features arise as a result of random mutations and are then shaped by natural selection based on environmental pressures and survival needs.
-
Design is a conscious, planned process involving creativity, foresight, and intentionality. Designers envision an end product and work methodically towards that goal.
Evolution is an unconscious, unplanned process driven by random genetic variations and the subsequent selection of traits that confer a survival or reproductive advantage in a given environment.
-
Feedback in human design is obtained through testing, user feedback, or market research. This feedback is then used to refine and improve the design.
In evolution, feedback comes from the environment. Traits that enhance survival and reproduction become more common over generations, while less advantageous traits are phased out.
-
The human design process is relatively rapid, taking days to years depending on complexity.
Evolutionary processes are slow, often taking thousands to millions of years.
-
Human designers can anticipate future needs and design flexibly for multiple scenarios or adapt quickly to new information or technologies.
Evolutionary adaptation occurs over generations and cannot anticipate future changes. Adaptations occur in response to past and current environmental pressures.
-
Designers often strive for efficiency and optimisation, using minimal resources to achieve maximum functionality.
While evolutionary adaptations can lead to highly efficient and optimised traits, they are often compromises and may carry trade-offs. The process is not driven by a conscious effort to optimise.
-
Human design can lead to sudden, innovative leaps in technology or functionality, often through combining existing ideas in novel ways.
Evolutionary innovation emerges gradually and is limited to changes that occur within the boundaries of existing genetic variability and environmental constraints.
-
Errors in human design can be identified and corrected in subsequent versions or iterations.
Evolution does not have a mechanism for immediate error correction. Maladaptive traits are slowly weeded out over generations.
-
Constraints in human design are often resource-based (material, financial) or stem from current technology limits.
Constraints in evolution are biological and environmental, including genetic variability, reproductive capacity, and ecological factors.
-
The outcomes of human design processes are often predictable and can be modelled or simulated in advance.
Evolutionary outcomes are unpredictable due to the random nature of mutations and the complexity of environmental interactions.
By understanding these fundamental differences, designers and innovators can engage in more effective and scientifically grounded bioinspired design. This shared understanding helps avoid anthropocentric assumptions and metaphors that can hinder the accurate interpretation of natural processes and their potential applications.
Avoiding Anthropocentric Notions in Nature-Inspired Innovation
When engaging in nature-inspired innovation, it's crucial to avoid anthropocentric notions that can hinder our understanding of the living world. Anthropocentrism is the tendency to regard humankind as the central or most important element of existence, while anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object. These biases can lead to misinterpretations of natural processes and limit the effectiveness of bioinspired design.
One key aspect to consider is the language we use when discussing organisms and living systems. Using "nature" as the subject of sentences can inadvertently suggest that nature is an active agent with inherent self-determination. In reality, nature is a series of phenomena, an extensive system of varied interactions that require interpretation through scientific inquiry. It is not a causal agent or active entity with its intentions.
Humans are prone to cognitive biases like "hypersensitive agency detection" or "intentionality bias," which lead us to attribute agency or purpose to nature. However, providence has no place in science, and we should avoid assigning deterministic roles to natural processes. Life is not inherently logical, and the same applies to the natural world's lack of intention compared to human intentions.
When we use metaphors like "natural strategies, designs, programs, or plans," we create intellectual obstacles that limit our ability to understand the living world through its processes and properties. These anthropocentric notions assume anticipation and causation, using the "order" found in nature as an indication of purposefulness. However, this is not how evolution works.
As designers and creators, humans mentally anticipate the functional properties of the object they are making and adapt the construction process to generate these properties. In other words, we begin with the end in mind, and the order in our creative process delivers the desired result, aligning form and function.
Nature, on the other hand, does the exact opposite. Organisms that succeed do so by chance, compatible with local survival. In the natural world, function (what a biological entity does and how well it does it) maintains form and drives its evolutionary changes. The resulting forms have to be incorporated into an existing network of biological trade-offs.
By understanding and respecting these fundamental differences between human design and evolutionary processes, we can engage in more effective and scientifically grounded nature-inspired innovation. This shared understanding helps us avoid anthropocentric assumptions that can hinder the accurate interpretation of natural phenomena and their potential applications in design and engineering.
Avoiding anthropocentric notions is essential for successful nature-inspired innovation. By using precise language, recognizing cognitive biases, and understanding the true nature of evolutionary processes, we can foster a more accurate and productive dialogue between designers and biologists. This, in turn, will lead to more effective and sustainable solutions inspired by the complex and fascinating world of living systems.
Conclusions
A shared scientific understanding of living systems can significantly enhance the potential of nature-inspired innovation. By fostering this shared understanding, we can ensure that our work is not only inspired by nature but also respects and accurately represents the complex processes and principles that govern the natural world. This, in turn, will lead to more effective and sustainable solutions to the complex problems we face today.
Respecting the complex evolutionary processes that shape the living world is crucial for developing truly effective and sustainable bioinspired solutions. By understanding that these processes are driven by chance, environmental pressures, and trade-offs rather than intentional design or optimization, we can avoid oversimplifications and anthropocentric assumptions that limit the effectiveness of our innovations.
To foster this shared understanding, designers, engineers, and innovators need to learn some of the basics of biology and physics. This knowledge helps avoid anthropocentric notions, such as attributing agency, intention, or inherent logic to nature. It also highlights the fundamental differences between human design, which starts with an intended function and consciously aligns form to achieve it, and evolutionary processes, where function maintains form and drives gradual changes over generations.
Nature's lack of intention is the exact opposite of human design. While humans mentally anticipate the functional properties of their creations and adapt the construction process to generate these properties, organisms in nature succeed by chance, compatible with local survival. Function maintains form and drives evolutionary changes in the natural world, and the resulting forms must be incorporated into an existing network of biological trade-offs.
By embracing these fundamental principles and fostering a shared scientific understanding among all stakeholders, we can unlock the true potential of nature-inspired innovation. This approach will lead to more fruitful collaborations between designers and biologists, ultimately resulting in solutions that are not only inspired by nature but also grounded in a deep respect for and understanding of the complex evolutionary processes that shape the living world.
Hi, we're Biomimicry Innovation Lab. We partner with founders and leaders to transform ideas into reality, drawing inspiration from transformative solutions found in nature. Our approach? Harnessing the latest scientific research with innovative tools to deliver solutions to complex challenges. Reach out for a virtual coffee to discuss ideas.
Bibliography
Darwin, C., 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.
Dawkins, R., 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gould, S.J., 1980. The panda's thumb: More reflections in natural history. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Mayr, E., 1982. The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Futuyma, D.J., 1986. Evolutionary biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Ridley, M., 1993. Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
Dennett, D.C., 1995. Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E., 1995. The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coyne, J.A. and Orr, H.A., 2004. Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Carroll, S.B., 2005. Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of evo devo and the making of the animal kingdom. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Dawkins, R., 2009. The greatest show on Earth: The evidence for evolution. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Futuyma, D.J. and Kirkpatrick, M., 2017. Evolution. 4th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Mayr, E., 2001. What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.
Gould, S.J., 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coyne, J.A., 2009. Why evolution is true. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
