Bionic Equals Sustainable?

Solutions inspired by natural shapes, mechanisms or behaviours are fascinating – and often touted to the public as especially ingenious, sustainable and low-risk: after all, even Darwin believed that only those individuals best adapted to their environment would survive. Does this mean that whatever has emerged through evolutionary processes and has stood the test of time can only be positive? Do technological solutions inspired by nature really deliver on their “bionic promise”?

Bionic promise stands not only for closeness to nature

According to biologist Arnim von Gleich, the bionic promise means that bionic technologies are not only close to nature, but also conserve resources, come with low risks and side effects, are elegant and refined, and convince through their optimal adaptability – and through ecological sustainability. [1]

The possible reasons for the power of the bionic promise are numerous. One of the reasons is the close connection between natural form or function and its technical solution – as in the case of Velcro fasteners or parachutes. The special abilities of certain creatures that have adapted to changed living conditions can also be instructive for researchers and developers who are looking for a technical solution to a problem.

Another approach is to find and determine the general playbook for success in evolution. According to Arnim von Gleich, in the future, these principles could enable the development of technical solutions that are smarter, safer, and more ecological, flexible and robust – just like the following examples: [2]

Solar economy: using what’s there

Living organisms use whatever is available to them in their natural environments – for example, solar energy and substances that are present in their surroundings like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, lime and water. And they adapt themselves perfectly and sustainably to local energy and material cycles.

Efficient use of raw materials

Some resources, such as certain nutrients, are found only in small quantities by living organisms. Creatures that use them particularly effectively have a survival advantage. Often, one species recycles the waste of another species – as in the case of a circular economy in which resources continually flow in cycles or cascades. In these times of dwindling resources, this model is also gaining in importance for new technologies.

Adaptability: changeable at all times

Organisms are able to adapt to environmental changes in order to survive. Unlike their natural models, however, many human-made solutions currently fail to perform when conditions change because they were designed to function in precisely defined conditions.

Modular principle for new solutions

A few of nature’s building blocks – cells, for example – can be combined multifariously and in this way open up a wide range of solutions for improving the safety and adaptability of living organisms.

The self-healing powers of nature as a model

Living organisms, but also entire ecosystems, are capable of surviving ecological irregularities such as droughts. Locked into their genes are possible reactions that can be deployed in such extreme situations. This makes them resilient, adaptable and innovative. This phenomenon is also called resilience. In addition, organisms are able to heal and organise themselves. Bionic technologies of the future should also possess some kind of immune system like this and the ability to repair minor flaws and wounds on their own.

“Bionic” is not a quality seal

According to Arnim von Gleich’s theory, the more that these principles are fulfilled, the more likely the bionic promise comes into effect – and the better the technology. However, the criteria must also be applied to the technical solution in question. And the question whether a technical product or process is actually “bionic” and thus sustainable must be examined by scientists on a case-by-case basis, says von Gleich. Because, in the scientist’s opinion, “bionic” should not be regarded as some kind of quality seal. This is because such a seal, awarded according to methodically defined evaluation procedures, does not exist for bionics. [3]

When evaluating a technology or an innovation the following applies: the better the transfer from nature, the more likely the bionic promise will be fulfilled. The natural function of the role model must be understood and explained. The complexity of the conditions and purposes of use should be as comparable as possible. And the more far-reaching the level of abstraction, and the higher the number of synthetic components, the more likely the innovation will contain side effects and knock-on effects.

In this process the limits of bionics are also revealed: potential dangers and risks need to be weighed up – and these often prevent a new technology from reaching market maturity. And the technical feasibility measured according to bionic standards may reach the boundaries of the possible. Finally, evolution itself is subject to limitations. It can only ‘transform’ the organisms available to it. This is called path dependency. The creativity of researchers and developers, on the other hand, can lead to completely new solutions that may be even better, more sustainable or less risky. [4]

In addition, the expert points out, it should be borne in mind that the optimisation goals in nature are not necessarily suitable as models for technical solutions that are intended to improve social, economic or ecological processes. For example, the evolutionary process aims at the survival of entire species and not of individual living organisms. Moreover, evolutionary progress is very slow. And it is a process that is in itself unconscious. And this means that we must not imagine “nature” as a thinking creature making conscious decisions. According to Arnim von Gleich, the development of bionic solutions should take place within the framework of conscious, responsible action and with more creative leeway. [5]

Side note: what lies behind the term “bionics”?

Bionics: learning from nature

The term “bionics” was coined in 1960 by the American Air Force Major J.E. Steele. It is composed of the terms biology (nature) and technology. Whereas in the 1970s bionics was understood to mean the imitation of nature, this notion has changed, even though there is still no uniform definition.

Zoologist Professor Dr Werner Nachtigall – one of the founders of bionics – describes bionics as “learning from nature for technology”. However, according to Nachtigall, nature does not provide any blueprints. Bionics is more about learning from nature’s principles of construction, process and development how something is constructed, how it operates, develops or grows – always with the goal of creating better connections between humans, the environment and technology. [6]

For Professor Dr Bernhard Irrgang, Chair of Philosophy of Technology at Technische Universität Dresden, bionics involves the transfer of biological knowledge to technology. This means that inventions of living nature are decoded and implemented in technology in innovative ways. However, this does not take place by means of a direct copy, but through “an independent, creative research and development process, that is, a technological reinvention stimulated by nature, which usually proceeds through several levels of abstraction and modification until it is applied”. [7]

Biomimicry: imitating the genius of nature

Unlike bionics, which usually concerns itself with individual technological solutions, biomimicry aims to help overcome technological, societal and organisational challenges. Forest scientist Janine Benyus coined the term, which is also called biomimetics. She associated it with the task of developing sustainable solutions. Humans should imitate the genius of nature in their designs, while reintegrating themselves into the cycle of nature. Janine Benyus: “Learning about the natural world is one thing; learning from the natural world – that’s the switch. That’s the profound switch.” [8]

Sources and bibliography

[1] https://www.oekologisches-wirtschaften.de/index.php/oew/article/view/528/528, p. 21
[2] https://www.oekologisches-wirtschaften.de/index.php/oew/article/view/435/435, p. 46f.
[3] https://www.oekologisches-wirtschaften.de/index.php/oew/article/view/528/528, p. 22
[4] https://www.ioew.de/uploads/tx_ukioewdb/Bionik_Aktuelle_Trends_und_zuk%C3%BCnftige_Potenziale.pdf, p. 32f.
[5] https://www.uni-stuttgart.de/presse/archiv/themenheft/04/herausforderung_bionik.pdf
[6] https://www.oekologisches-wirtschaften.de/index.php/oew/article/view/435/435, p. 48
[7] https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/umwelt/bioethik/33802/bionik
[8] https://biomimicry.org/janine-benyus/