Has nature already solved many of the challenges that mankind is facing today? As technological evolution increasingly interferes with the delicate balance of our ecosystems, may we turn to existing biological processes for solutions to technologically-driven problems? While historically, technology has solved problems with more applied science and automation, we have begun to reach the limits of this approach. Toxic chemicals and perfunctory mechanics now underlie almost all new technology. Life, on the other hand, has evolved for ~3.8 billion years, and creates the foundation upon which all biological evolution has taken place. As a result, all technologies created during this time have existed within the paradigm of biological evolution. Through the manipulation of materials, physical, and chemical states, technological evolution has taken a decidedly different approach - one that largely ignores the refinement of nature's design, and the balance of its ecosystems. In the 20th century, technology has trended towards even more reliance on raw material extraction, and their formation into innocuous new compounds. If our current rate of environmental degradation leaves any doubt, this trend is not favored in nature.
According to Czech philosopher Radovan Richta, technology evolves in three stages: tools, machine, automation. This evolution, he says, follows two trends: the replacement of physical labor with more efficient mental labor, and the resulting greater degree of control over one's natural environment, including an ability to transform raw materials into ever more complex and pliable products. Let's think about this for a second: "Transform raw materials into ever more complex and pliable products" and "exert control over one's natural environment." hmm...
So if technology allows us to exert control over our environment, are we now the arbiters of nature? If we can manipulate our surroundings to such an extent, that the forces of natural selection no longer determine survival, has biological evolution stopped? In considering this, it is important to note that dependence on technology is almost a prerequisite to survival for many people today. Much of the middle east would not be habitable without technologically driven infrastructure for water. The world's 6.9 billion people could not be fed without genetic engineered plants for higher crop yields. Hell...I might not make it through a Wednesday without my triple grande nonfat macchiatto in the morning.
It is important to note that there is a very serious conflict of interests here. As technological evolution continues to manipulate the environment by transforming raw materials into complex products, its effect on the balance of natural ecosystems is destructive. While our cultural needs have evolved to rely increasingly on technology, our physiological needs as organisms remain largely unchanged since the Cambrian Era. In light of this, one must ask: Is the current form of technological evolution sustainable? I would argue that a fundamental shift in our view of technology is required to address this conflict between nature and technology. I *would like* say that a fundamental shift in nature is required to address our reliance on technology, but alas...natural design is the product of 3.8 billion years of refinement and above all else, has stood the test of time. Would it be possible then, to leverage natural design principles to "evolve" existing technology?
Enter - Biomimicry. Biomimicry is an ideology that takes inspiration from nature to help make technology more sustainable. Read about it here.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment