Biomimicry vs. Biomockery

Biomimicry vs. Biomockery

Humans are biological creatures and we do best when we are in alignment with our environments. Ultimately, as noted in an earlier post, this comes down to the question of whether we are creating an egosystem or an ecosystem:

An ego-system is structured to satisfy shareholder wants and to privatize decision-making. Financial capital is valued above other contributions, costs are not fully disclosed and transactions lack transparency.

In the ecosystem, all stakeholders are committed to the shared wellbeing of the community. All forms of capital are valued, all costs are considered and transactions are transparent.

Are we creating and valuing our communities in ways that recognize & emulate the natural rooted patterns of thriving? Or using models that utilize the ‘greenwash‘ model in which the appearance of a commitment to community-focused solutions is used to cover up the fact that the true outcome plays out in an opposite manner to the goal of the announced initiative. In other words, are developers claiming biomimicry when, in truth, they are practicing biomockery?

Biomimicry is an approach to innovation that seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies. The goal is to create products, processes, and policies—new ways of living—that are well-adapted to life on earth over the long haul. The core idea is that nature has already solved many of the problems we are grappling with. Animals, plants, and microbes are the consummate engineers. After billions of years of research and development, failures are fossils, and what surrounds us is the secret to survival. [Source: www.biomimicry.org]

Biomockery, as defined by Talley Summerlin in his Creative Species blog, include innovations based on nature’s lessons and guidance used for ill (i.e. weaponry, poison, habitat destruction, havoc-wreaking, and general death-dealing). While, neighborhood development may not lead to ‘general death-dealing’ on the macro level, the micro effects on the health & sustainability of community do have long-term ripple effects.

As an example, let’s look at what’s happening in Austin:

“Austin’s rise to the top of the list signals the durability of the city’s long-term appeal to investors” [Source: Emerging Trends 2017: Niche Neighborhoods and Economic Diversity Make Austin, Dallas Top Markets]

So, what happens to a city trending to low local ownership of what is likely a resident’s biggest financial investment and is the asset that roots their life here? It brings forward the question of whether money is the most important measure of Austin’s value and, if so, how do we ensure the complexity & diversity needed for a local thriving community when that money is being extracted out of the city as quickly as it arrives? This cannot be created from the outside, it can only be done at the local grassroots level.