1. Introduction

The consumer revolution of the nineteenth century stimulated the demand for goods in the British economy.  “From the 1840s, railways revolutionised the speed of communication [...] The dynamism of the economy  shifted firmly from agriculture to industry and trade” (Hudson, 2011ti The goal, as advertised to consumers,  was to facilitate the way of living, but undeniably also to make profit through business. The transition from  consumption patterns based on needs to consumption patterns based on desires seen throughout the 20th  century in the West has resulted in contemporary lifestyles defined by the consumption of material goods.  This evolution has continued, “fueled by fast-paced changes in technology, which have greatly changed  economies, societies and the natural environment and has made our world more interconnected than ever  before” (UN DESA, 2017, 'New Globalization Report', UN News). Today’s technological advancements have  not only allowed greater efficiency in the production, distribution and consumption of goods, but have also  created a network allowing our economic system to grow faster and bigger than ever before.  

With improving standards of living, greater access to healthcare and education, and increasing purchasing  power, more and more of the world’s population is moving out of poverty and into a new global urban  consumer class. However, the world’s population is expected to grow by 2.2 billion by 2050 (UN DESA,  World Population Prospects, 2017) with an accelerating urbanisation creating new significant challenges.  One of those is the broadening chasm separating classes as a result of the inability from a growing segment  of the world’s population to take advantage of globalization either economically, socially or politically. In  addition, the complex dynamics driving the systems we live in are encouraging unsustainable lifestyles for  both the natural environment and the man-made environment.  

It has become clear that the worldwide spread of the consumption lifestyle has created an urgent and  essential need to promote more sustainable ways of living. In the field of architecture sustainable design has  the capacity “to reduce negative impacts on the environment, and the health and comfort of building  occupants, thereby improving building performance” with the ultimate aim to “reduce consumption of non renewable resources, minimize waste, and create healthy, productive environments.” (GSA, n.d.). Architecture  is one example highlighting the possibility for design practices to be a significant driver for change.  

A more precautionary approach is needed in sustainable designs to better address the problems caused by  our consumerist lifestyles. In order to better understand how design can become a significant driver for  positive change, this dissertation will look at our modern lifestyles, defined by material culture, which in turn  define our identities and values. Using case studies mostly relevant to Western culture, the role of design is  questioned and redefined in the light of a recent sustainable movement known as biomimicry. I use  biomimicry as an example of a design approach that fully takes advantage of current improvements in technology and science to bring about a sustainable paradigm shift. This approach has the power to bring  nature into the urban environment and directly impact our lifestyles and behaviours. This dissertation will  conclude with the prospect of symbiotic futures involving biomimicry.  

2. Consumption as a lifestyle

Class structure 

The research conducted by Dagdeviren, Van der Hoeven, Weeks (2000) suggests that “the central strategy  choice is between poverty reduction through faster economic growth and reduction through redistribution”  of wealth using means such as taxation. The authors argue that an increase in the number of consumers  from the middle-class could help workers with a lower income to have the same purchasing power. However,  there are several problems with this view. Firstly, economic growth will widen and strengthen the current  social gap, pushing two extremities apart, with individuals earning a high income and others earning  extremely low income. Secondly, for growth to occur, more trade and consumption is required within the  economy, which has a huge impact both on the environment and on the social and cultural situation.  

Today more than ever, as research suggests in the UK, “in almost every developed country, happiness levels  have remained largely static over the past 50 years - despite huge increases in income” (Easton, M. 2006).  This article reinforces the idea that wealth is not key to defining our well-being but is substituted by further  consumption of material goods, reinforcing the capitalist machine with an economic growth. 

Consumption  

The term consumption is actually less than a century old, and emerged with the modern capitalist era. But  nowadays, consumption is no longer representative of our needs. Biological and psychological needs (e.g. air,  food, drink, shelter, etc.) are no longer the only reasons for consumption. In contrast with ‘developing  countries’ with essential physiological needs, people living in “developed countries” are now trying to fulfil a  more recent kind of need, with ownership of material goods that are not necessary to one’s survival, but help  with the needs of social belonging, esteem and self-actualization as explained in Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs.  In the ‘Study of the Role of Identity in Lifestyle and Consumption’ (Rizi, Sabeghi, 2015), it is explained that  “consumption has exceeded needs and the gap is filled by consumption-oriented manner”. Consumption has  now become a driving force influencing our lifestyles, and has created a material culture defining an  important aspect of one’s identity. It has evolved into a global culture, defined by material goods, that  determines the way we live and value things around us. We have adopted a lifestyle defined by values,  behaviours, and activities associated with meeting current needs.  

Recent megatrends and globalization 

The relationship that we, as consumers, have with products has changed over time, with shifts in trends and  developments in technologies. On a larger scale, we have more recently become both directly and indirectly  influenced by rapid urbanisation, climate change and resource scarcity, by the shift in global and economic  power, by demographic and social changes, and by technological breakthroughs. All of these forces, also  called Megatrends, currently influence the way we live. Rapid urbanisation, for example, is boosted by the  direct and instant accessibility to all kinds of goods in a short radius within the city, taking us further away  from our natural environment, despite nature being essential to keeping humankind alive.  

Globalization is the result of heightened interaction and interconnection between people and places, through  widespread exchanges of capital, ideas and knowledge. As defined by Noam Chomsky (2006), globalization is  one specific modality of “international economic integration” also referred to as the “free trade”, which  “privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental” and as a result, it is “directed  towards the interests of the developing world”. As suggested by Chomsky, globalization is giving an  opportunity to many countries to develop and take part in international trade.  

Again, however, an alarming problem is apparent. For this system to continue to develop, production and consumption must continue to grow. Mass production has exceeded our needs, and is pressuring consumers by creating new needs, which in turn is causing an immense carbon footprint. During the twentieth century, cars, for instance, became in many countries more accessible than ever before. An article published in The Guardian on the production of cars in relation to its carbon footprint demonstrates that the production process of a car can often have a higher carbon footprint than the car itself during its lifetime. “The carbon footprint of making a car is immensely complex.” For a car to be made, ores have to be dug out of the ground and the metals extracted, then turned into parts. “Other components have to be brought together: rubber tyres, plastic dashboards, paint, and so on. All of this involves transporting things around the world.” (Burners-Lee, M. and Clark, D. 2010) This example illustrates how urgent the need is to re-think the entire life-cycle of production and consumption, not merely from cradle to grave but from “cradle to cradle” as seen in nature’s cycles. It also highlights the need to question the motivations that drive consumers to consume.

Material goods and identity 

Identity can be defined as a culture formed by experience, knowledge, education, and environment of an  individual. Today, what gives a sense of purpose and identity to individuals is the consumption of material  goods. One might wonder how a material goods satisfy the need for identity and wellbeing?  

Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus, also called The Minimalists, have tried to show that identity and  happiness doesn’t have to be defined by material goods. They demonstrate this by removing excess of material goods in their lives, in order to make space for “more time, more passion, more experiences, more  growth, more contribution, more contentment.” (Fields Millburn, J. and Nicodemus, R. 2011) and in the  overall more freedom. This approach would need dedication from the individuals interested in making a  change in their lifestyles for a, supposedly, cheaper and happier life.

Social value and monetary value 

In the book ‘The System of Objects’, Jean Baudrillard conveys that “consumption on its own does not meet the  needs of a group of mortal beings, but guarantees the signs and symbols. Baudrillard believes consumption  should be considered as a trend where the buyer tries actively to create a feeling of identity by showing the  purchased goods” (Rizi, Sabeghi, 2015). In other words, the symbolism of a material good is what defines its  value, and this can only be done through its social validation. For instance, the value of a new pair of shoes is  first associated with a monetary value, the price, which is also easily associated with quality. But it is only  when worn and approved by surrounding individuals that the social value of the shoes is defined. One could  question the value of a material good, today, if it hasn’t been “tested and validated in a social milieu” (Thorpe,  2010, p.13). In the same way that one's identity is defined by a product, the identity of a product is defined  by the way it is used and consumed.  

The predominant capitalist system encourages unsustainable designs, with a short lifespan and a large environmental impact. A change in the design approach could bring about major change. In Scandinavia, there has been a development of a distinct trend, a new design identity, often related by foreigners to the big Swedish design retail, IKEA. The choice of materials, such as light coloured wood, glass, clean details, etc., makes it a brand mark recognised and used worldwide for its minimalism and simplicity. These products are aesthetically pleasing and standard, occupying the space discreetly and efficiently. The choice of materials, with the understated aesthetics, is strategic in the way that it looks more  ’natural’ and could even appear as ‘organic’ to the consumers.  

The term organic is today widely used. From food to clothing to furniture and everything else taking part in  our contemporary lifestyles, “organic” is perceived as an added value. However, this term was introduced to  architecture a long time ago, and is still taking part in the definition of recent designs. The meaning, has  slightly changed from more philosophical approach to a more aesthetic one, which is changing our  understanding of it and its use (Puric, 2016). 

In his writings, Frank Lloyd Wright (1925) used the term organic to refer to a harmony between the design  and environment, using forms and shapes present in the natural landscape. Today it is associated with the  aesthetics of curves, resembling what could be found in nature. Another principle defining the term organic  is the quality of being sustainable. (Puric, 2016) In recent years, architects have increasingly looked to nature  as an inspiration to create more sustainable buildings. This approach could, in the future, not only apply to  architecture, but also serve to design products.

3. Nature in an urban context

Nature and architecture 

In architecture, space will be defined by the people using it as well as the activities taking place, which define  its function within that environment. In his essay The stages in Bauhaus, the German painter, Oskar  Schlemmer suggests, following his idea on how man occupies and creates space, that “space could become a  tool for managing human activity and behaviour.” (Gans, D. and Kuz, Z. (ed.) 2003, p.41). In other words, the value given to a space or a product directly impacts the behaviour of the users. In summary, the material good is a way of expressing the behaviour towards ourselves, others, and the environment. Looking more closely at the functional value can help change the way products are used and the way we identify to them. In Acceptera, the group of Swedish architects involved in the Stockholm Exhibition of 1930 - Sven Markelius, Gregor Paulsson, Eskil Sundahl and Uno Ahren - distinguished between the city as a ‘living organism’ and the city as a ‘work of art’ as follows: “A city as a work of art is a  dangerous concept. It is not something permanently static (…) it is a result of real needs, whose changing  nature should be taken into consideration. A city is an expression of movement, work, life of a thousand  different kinds. It is a living organism … The environment is and must be changing identity.” (Gans and Kuz,  2003, p.42) The designer needs to allow the product, regardless of its scale, to actively adapt to the user’s  essential needs, enabling future and present trends and behaviours to be predicted.  

Already in the early 1950’s, The “early buildings, around 1955, were influenced by nature-bound architecture”  says the architect Günter Behnisch. He began to practice architecture in post second World War Germany,  during reconstruction. Buildings were built the “conventional way - working with individual craftsmen and  individual firms.” (Gans and Kuz, 2003, p.21). “Architecture was seen in the past, as an architecture of three dimensional bodies and enclosed spaces, both interior and exterior” Behnisch, G. believes that such a  concept “no longer corresponds to how we try to see and understand our world today.” (p.15) The value and  meaning of architecture and design have changed along with our lifestyle.  

Starting in the 1930’s, the group of architects Sullivan, Wright, Gropius, Häring, all used the new term of ‘organic architecture’ as part of their work. The architect Hugo Häring, defines it as “a wide ranging concept that extended from a simple relationship to landscape, to nature, a mimesis of nature, to the open accordance with ’the law of nature’, to the design method of Gropius, who wanted a synthesis of art and technology, imagination and rationality.” (Gans and Kuz, 2003, p.20). In 1925, Häring follows: “The things that we human beings create are the result of our endeavours in two directions, on the one hand we lay claim to the fulfilment of a purpose, and on the other to an expression. And so there is a conflict for form between claims of an objective, tangible nature and those of a spiritual nature”. (Häring, H. 1962, p.45ti. Around the same time, Frank Lloyd Wright (1925) defines organic architecture, with the Fallingwater house as an example of “a sentient, rational building that would owe its ‘style’ to the integrity with which it was individually fashioned to serve its particular purpose – a ‘thinking’ as well as ’feeling’ process.” (p.28).

Functional value and sustainability

“Sustainability has no simple definition, and needs to be adaptive to its location.” Cucinella compares sustainability with an ecosystem – it is dependent on the characteristics of place, including climate, culture, resources or technology. (Cucinella, 2016). In the last decade, many movements in favour of sustainability have emerged, tackling issues such as of carbon footprint and linear production process. Nonetheless, in these architectural products, aesthetics takes precedence over functionality, the latter being a key element to a sustainable design. The 30 St Mary Axe, also called the Gherkin was  designed by Foster and Partners in London in 2003. “The sustainability of the tower defines some of its  visual features. It uses only half of the energy that similarly sized structures use, the reason behind this iconic shape” (2003). The uses of windows as the skin of the Gherkin to let sunlight enter the interior and reduce  the need for artificial lighting, as well as a self-ventilated environment when needed but also uses the heat  from the sun to warm up the air. In this example, the aesthetic form completes the functionality of the  building, making it a successful sustainable design. 

Another, more recent example is the Sustainability Treehouse by Mithun with BNIM (2013), located in West  Virginia (United States) which demonstrates the importance of the proficiency of a building in terms of  energy, materials and other elements. The materials not only aim to create harmony between nature and  design, but also aim to help reduce the impact on the natural environment throughout the lifecycle of the  building.  

An increasing number of architects are now concerned with important environmental issues and aim for  more sustainable architectural conceptions. The appearance of a building being in harmony with the  environment is not enough anymore. Aesthetics and function should complement each other in order to  enhance the natural surroundings.

The focus on nature

The term of nature is defined as all living things, an ecosystem constantly evolving and adapting to its environment, regenerating inside closed-loop life-cycles, and creating conditions conductive to life. Most importantly, it is a self-sufficient network of organisms. According to Pawlyn (2011) “in the future, our indicator of well-being, just as in nature, will be abundant and a dynamic equilibrium”. “Nature works in terms of resilience, compatibility and indefinite supply.” (p.114) However, this abundance of organisms cannot be sustained by our current consumption lifestyle if it remains unchanged. Ahmet Omurtag understands organisms as “entities that struggle. They struggle to live, to survive, to exist. They battle against one another, as prey against predator; they compete for food, for sources energy and for space to live in. If there had been sufficient resources for all, one can imagine that the basis and reason for competition would not have  existed. Hence, underlying the reality of organisms as struggling entities is a basic condition of  scarcity.” (Gans, D. and Kuz, Z. 2003, p.49).  

Natural ecosystems and our predominant capitalist model cannot coexist on this planet, as one is set for  survival and based on a circular model, and the other is linear, consumes ever more, and has lost sight of  long-term survival. In order to sustain our needs, nature would have to produce excess.  

Architecture seeking compatibility?  

Could man-made structures become more compatible with organisms? Behnisch argues that architecture is  limited “to practical functions, to materials and technology and, of course to physical laws” (ibid. p.5).  However, architecture evolves continuously and so do our interests. Humans’ knowledge is expanding,  various forces are influencing one’s behaviour and societies, and ultimately, these factors are changing the  process of creation. The American architect, John Johanesen, believed that certain processes of organisms  may be applied to architectural designs. He defined those under two separate organisational performances - the first one as a ’bio-organisation’ and the second as a ‘self-organisation’ - both part of the ‘Green Building’,  proposed in 1990 by structural and environmental engineers Ove Arup of London, with the architect Jan  Kaplicki. “A computerised calculation is allowing self-organisation and self-regulation of interior services and  climate”. Along with “its sensors and neural communications and performances”, this building “approaches the  adaptive and symbiotic behaviours of the living organism.” (Gans, D. and Kuz, Z. 2003, p.97).  

Could the use of sustainable design and technological innovations reinstate nature and its value in the urban  environment, to allow coexistence between different systems? If one imagines the future as a sustainable  system only, it will require a major change in the way we consume material goods, and similarly a major  change in the way our identity is defined.

The illusion of nature through the digital filter 

We’ve entered a digital era in which innovations in various technologies are constantly transforming our  lifestyle and behaviour. One of the principal objectives of technologies is to facilitate accessibility to  information and facilitate communication. However, with this move, we have lost sight of nature. Psychology  professor at the University of Washington, Peter Kahn narrates beautifully an example of one of the  consequences of the constant use of technologies, in his book ‘Technological Nature: Adaptation and the  Future of Human Life’ (2011) - “Electric lights illuminate the dark. I love the feeling of being inside my cabin  with lights ablaze, writing at my desk far into the night. But those same lights blind me to the night sky. And  when millions of us in the city keep our lights aglow, the stars can no longer be seen.” (p.33) The  technological developments in the urban environment is bringing the intuitive relationship with nature to a  decline on a global scale. Originally, these inventions aimed to make our lives physically easier, giving us more time to do more things. Yet, today, in our technological world many people are woefully out of shape, which  often diminishes their physical health and psychological well-being” (Kahn, 2011), reversing their purpose.  

Today our experience of nature is mediated by technology, which weakens the relationship there is between  consumers and living things, making it more distant and fragile. The use of technological nature is mistaken  as a substitute of nature but Kahn believes technological nature could help to re-envision what is valued in  our relationship with the natural world. Kahn (2011) argues that in terms of human well-being “technological  nature is better than no nature but not as good as actual nature. If we employed technological nature only as  a bonus on top of our interactions with actual nature, then we would be in good shape.” (p.14). Increasingly,  individuals experience nature through technology, by simulating a virtual world on a digital game, or creating  visual access to the other side of the world via the internet interface. However this approach alone is not  sustainable and is providing us with the illusion of connecting with our natural environment.  

Biomimicry: a possible breakthrough 

Recent technological advances are allowing designers to create buildings and products more efficiently and  to try to change our lifestyles by moving towards greater self-sufficiency. The growing capacities of biomimetic  technologies has allowed us to not only look at the shape of organisms but also emulate nature’s function.  The idea is to position nature closer to our current consumer culture, which can, in turn, close the gap  between nature and man-made things. Biomimicry could help highlight the importance of locality, scale and  self-sufficiency if it is used in a way that could bring individuals closer to the source of inspiration: nature.  Designers could “go beyond simply mimicking Nature to synthesising architecture in tune with it and bringing  bio-inspired solutions that are more responsive to human needs and well-being.” (Ramzy, 2015, p.248). Is the  emulation of nature enough to align the biomimetic approach with consumer culture?

4. Biomimicry and sustainability 

What is biomimicry? 

In order to comprehend biomimicry, one must look at its origins. While the terminology is relatively new, the practice is not, and man has been copying nature since the beginning of mankind. A striking example of man seeking inspiration in nature is Leonardo Da Vinci’s attempt to create a “flying machine” by looking at birds. The term of Biomimetics was coined by Odo H. Schmid in 1969, nearly 500 years after Da Vinci’s invention. This relatively new science relates to the study and  imitation of nature's methods, designs and processes (Bar-Cohen, 2005) and looks at systems and functions  from natural organisms to develop sustainable designs as solutions to human challenges. The practice was  later developed by Janine Benyus in the late 90s who argues that sustainability is the main objective of  biomimicry along with other aims such as functionality, resource efficiency, adaptation to changing  conditions and a dynamic equilibrium. In line with this idea, Thorpe (2012) argues that the “notion of  durability ties into ‘adaptable’ products”, meaning that one without the other loses its meaning. A product can  adapt to needs and conditions if it is sustainable.  

What is a sustainable design in today’s current situation? One example is the Crystal building designed by  Wilkinson Eyre in 2016. “It employs a number of new technologies to reduce energy use rather than relying  solely on passive systems. Much of its efficiency is therefore due to a sophisticated management system,  which allows every element in this all-electric building to be monitored, benchmarked and fine-tuned to  minimise energy use” (The Crystal, 2016). This is a sustainable design that focuses on being resource  efficient, on using renewable sources and saving energy.  

Primitive lifestyles still observed in remote parts of the world display a sensitivity to, and harmony with the  natural environment that can not be found in an urban environment. Thanks to their deep understanding of  the ecology of their surroundings, indigenous people around the world are able to respond and adapt to  environmental challenges. “They can be valuable agents in maintaining global biodiversity and building  resilience to climate change.” (Magni, 2016, p.4).  

The biomimicry conundrum  

Efficiency in rela,on to consump,on behaviours Pawlyn (2011) argues that biomimicry does not address all the necessary sociocultural issues involved in  urban design. Today, the ones who create technological innovations are shifting the way they look at the  intrinsic intelligence of nature. Therefore, efficiency of biomimicry will only be at its best when human  species will adapt to nature’s needs in order to coexist and allow both organisms to strive in the same  environment.  

Some sustainable designs using biomimetics can become questionable as they encourage the acceleration of  consumption, without changing the consumption lifestyle of individuals towards a more nature orientated  one, in the urban environment. The application of a biomimetic design can strongly influence a consumer’s  lifestyle depending on the way it is achieved. Originally, it is trying to achieve a sustainable function but put into context, does it still achieve its original purpose? For instance, an engineer called Eiji Nakatsu designed the forefront of the Shinkansen train based on the beak of the kingfisher, (Shinkansen Train, 2016ti allowing the train to minimise friction at high speed. The train’s purpose is to allow a development in communication between different destination points, which is boosting the economy of the country and consequently increasing the global consumption of the country. This process is inspired by nature but however it is not following the ethics of  sustainability, by reinforcing the capitalist system in which we live. Ramzy (2005) confirms this by saying that  “some biomimetic technologies are not inherently more sustainable or nature-friendly than conventional  equivalent” (p.248). The growing quantity of the construction of unfit built environment is increasing instant  connectivity between people and places, increasing consumerism and resulting in further depletion of  natural environment and resources. These links are rarely made evident, allowing urban consumers to further  distance one’s self to the consequences and its reality.  

New kinds of research have been developed combining ethics, design and synthetic biology. Genetic  modification of animals and plants is an example of this research that can create a dangerous disequilibrium  in the world ecosystem. A rational and meaningful response is needed in order to keep the ecosystem in  balance. In opposition to this kind of approach, biomimicry has a more sustainable approach by imitating  nature with the aim to sustain it.  

Biomimetic technologies with biophilic qualities  

The approach of biomimicry could be developed to cope more efficiently with the consumerist culture,  changing the direction of the aims in the production process and in the final outcome. The social impact of  biomimetics draws communities of designers, scientists, biologists, engineers, creatives together, making it a  collaborative interdisciplinary practice. This is providing a framework which strengthens the goal of a  more sustainable future, using recent innovations to go forward. Sustainable designs should aim to adapt to  the current socio economic situation, consumer lifestyle, in order to bring consumption and needs closer.  This could change our current consumption lifestyle to a more sustainable one. The meaning of architecture  changed from a product to a process, would evolve beder with the natural environment.  

Biophilia was originally defined by Wilson (1984) as an “innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike  processes”. In other words, the process of mimicking nature has a positive impact on individuals, at a psychological level. Kellert (2005) uses a different approach to “biophilic design” with the idea of an organic  design involving “the use of shapes and forms in buildings and landscapes that directly, indirectly, or  symbolically elicit people’s inherent affinity for the natural environment”.  

Is biophilia completing the purpose of biomimetics? One could argue that biophilic qualities are necessary to  achieve the function of biomimicry. In the same way, I believe that it is essential for nature, as a physical  element, to take part in the process of biomimicry, in order to understand the complexity of nature’s systems.  Biophilia “contends that human health and well-being has a biologically-based need to affiliate with  Nature” (Wilson, 2008). Design could relate to form a symbiotic structure relative to nature but more  importantly needs to be in harmony with it. All kinds of designs, such as architectural ones, should be able to  evolve and adapt intuitively as the natural environment does. Biophilic qualities give individuals the  awareness to reconnect with nature, while biomimicry can give an understanding of nature and enable  individuals to rediscover nature, strengthening the relationship.  

5. Changing our consumption lifestyle 

Application of nature in society 

Every sub-system in the ecosystem has collected millions of years of information on variations and patterns,  constantly evolving as an ‘open source of knowledge’. Accessible by any human being, nature is resourceful  and can make human wellbeing possible, through its application within the urban environment. For this to  work, individuals need to rediscover nature in order to understand it and live with it, in symbiosis. “Since the  Industrial Revolution, the world of design has been dominated by the rigors of manufacturing and mass  production. Assembly lines have dictated a world made of parts, framing the imagination of designers and  architects who have been trained to think about their objects as assemblies of discrete parts with distinct  functions. But you don't find homogenous material assemblies in nature.” says Neri Oxman (2015). Designer  and professor at the MIT Media Lab, Oxman suggests that we now live in a world in which it is possible to  combine technology and biology to create as one living thing, adapting to different needs. She takes the  example of the human skin: its thickness changes depending on the need to protect a certain area of the  body. All these adaptations are happening on one same skin, staying as a whole. The imitation of nature’s  function with the use of natural elements could bring a positive effect to consumers and enable people to  relate directly to nature. It would create a coherence and proximity to nature that could improve humans  wellbeing.  

Coexisting: a sustainable future 

Biomimicry can only be sustainable if it breaks away from the popularization of consumption lifestyle. Its aim  should be to help make possible the idea of living in a symbiotic environment, where nature could coexist  and develop within the urban context. “It wasn’t until 2003 that the UK government (…) was among the first  to adopt a strategy recognizing that substantial behavior and lifestyle change are essential components for  achieving sustainability” (Thorpe, A., 2010, p.4). Design strategist Anne Thorpe’s thoughts concerning  consumption lifestyles highlight the urgency to change the status quo.  

It is becoming more common to see designers that explore the possibility of using nature in future designs,  with the aim to change our lifestyle and behaviour. As an example, the Mediated Mader (2013) group is  exploring “the relationship between digital and biological fabrication on product and architectural scales” by  creating a silk pavilion with 6,500 silkworms and a primary structure of “26 polygonal panels made of silk  threads laid down by a CNC (Computer-Numerically Controlled) machine”. Throughout the making, they  observed the behaviour of the silkworms would be affected by the environmental conditions (such as natural  light exposure, temperature, etc.) surrounding the structure on which they were placed, which would alter  the surface area of the structure and ultimately the outcome of the pavilion. The use of organisms as  “entities that can “compute” material organization based on external performance criteria” is creating a  design process that would include organisms and ultimately would change one’s behaviour towards its  environment. The direct use of such organisms within the design process has allowed them to gain detailed  knowledge that can be used for a more sustainable future.

In the same line of thought, with a more futuristic approach, a senior lecturer and TED fellow, Rachel  Armstrong imagines a future where architecture is a living organism, adapting to the environment to fulfil human needs. Moreover, she thinks “that to design for instability is a really powerful thing” (Hobson, B.  2014). Armstrong is investigating how cities could be grown from soils as part of a project called Persephone. As Armstrong defines it, "Persephone is the design and engineering of the living interior of a  star ship" led by Icarus Interstellar foundation, with the ambition to travel in space by 2100. She goes on  explaining the “architectures within this space will be grown from the bottom up, using the soils. The soils  themselves will not be made inert like they are on earth – like bricks. In Persephone the culture would be to  keep the liveliness of everything." (Ibid.).  

Armstrong’s concept of living architecture is furthering the approach of biomimicry, by suggesting the idea of resilience. For the British activist and writer Rob Hopkins (2008), “Resilience is a concept familiar to the  ecologist. It refers to the ability of a system, from individuals to whole economies, to hold together and  maintain their ability to function in the face of change and shocks from outside”. A resilient design would  change its rhythm from one driven by a man-made production pace to a natural rhythm, guided by the use  of living organisms in the design process. These design approach are completely sustainable and could act as  solution to the ongoing environmental issues by changing the status quo. Biomimicry will play a significant  role in the way the future will develop, in condition that it is used with the aim to value and reintroduce the  natural environment in the urban context and current lifestyle.  

6. Conclusion 

Identity has come to be defined by the consumption of material goods. Consumption has now reached a  point where it exceeds needs on a global scale. While the efficiency of communication has improved vastly  throughout the world, our new lifestyle has resulted in huge socio-economic and environmental imbalances.  The way things are valued has evolved, endangering the fragile relationship between nature and our society.  

Today’s interconnected culture and identity are in conflict with our ecosystem, hence the urgent need to  promote a more sustainable way of living, starting with production. Nature-oriented sustainable approaches  such as biomimicry have encountered contradictions: the function to be filled is used as the basis for  obtaining sustainable outcomes but the philosophy underlying biomimicry is being neglected. Biomimetic  approaches based on functional value fail to address the social value of material things. For biomimicry to  achieve its goal, it will have to satisfy the symbolic needs of consumer culture. Despite this, biomimetic  designs have the power to bring awareness to individuals and to help one to rediscover the natural  environment within urban contexts.  

Our modern lifestyle has changed nature’s position, pushing it away from the urban context. The relationship  we have with nature is currently distant. However, this could change with the use of sustainable approach  such as biomimicry. In this dissertation, it has become apparent that the full potential of such an approach  could be achieved by directly involving nature in the process. Leveraging improvements in technology and science, biomimicry may eventually teach us how to coexist with the natural environment. Achieving this  could lead to a closer human-nature relationship that would involve a deeper understanding of the  complexity and importance of this interaction. The current imbalance could be changed, together with our  lifestyle.  

While it is unclear what the future relationship between sustainable processes and consumption is going to  look like, it is essential to further develop the inevitable connection that we, as individuals and as a society,  must have with the natural environment by means of rational and responsible approaches.  

This dissertation has looked at different levels of connection between man-made products and nature in the  context of design and architecture and has reached the conclusion that it will be possible to achieve a  symbiosis - i.e. humans and nature closely co-existing and benefiting from one another - with nature and  design forming one. Society would relearn how to live with the natural environment and in return, help it  recover and regain a predominant role in our lifestyles.

References 

Books  

Benyus, J. (2002) Biomimicry is innovation inspired by nature. 

Botsman, R. and Rogers, R. (2010) What’s mine is yours The rise of collaborative consumption.  

Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. 

Bowen, S. and Zembla, N (2012) Suspending the ephemeral.  

Braham W.W., Hale J.A. (eds.), (2013), Rethinking Architectural Technology, p.8. 

Brewer, J. & Porter, R. (1993) Consumption and the World of Goods.  

Busch, M. (2008) Adam Smith and Consumerism’s Role in Happiness: Modern Society Re-examined.  Chapman, J. (2005) Emotionally durable design.  

Desmond, J. (2002) Consuming Behaviour.  

Gans, D. and Kuz, Z. (ed.) (2003) The Organic Approach to Architecture. Wiley-Academy.  

Häring, H. Joedicke, J. (ed.), Kramer, K. (1962) Das Andere Bauen. Studgart.  

Hopkins, R., 2008. The Transi)on Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience, 1st ed. Green Books.  Katavolos, W., 1961. Organics, Steendrukkerij de Jong (Hilversum). Reprinted in Ulrich Conrads (ed),1987, Manifestoes of  20th Century Architecture, MIT Press (Cambridge MA), p.163-164.  

Kellert, S. (2005), Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-nature Connection, Covelo, CA, USA: Island  Press.  

Kahn, P. (2011) Technological Nature: Adapta-on and the Future of Human Life. MIT Press. 

Lovelock, J. (2006) The revenge of Gaia.  

Marras, A. (1999) ECO-TEC Architecture of the In-Between.  

Maudlin, D. and Vellinga, M. (2014) Consuming Architecture: On the occupa-on, appropria-on and interpreta-on of buildings.  McHarg, I. (1969) Design with nature.  

Michael, M. (2000) Reconnec-ng culture, technology and nature from society to heterogeneity.  

Murray, C. (1996) Charles Murray and the Underclass: The Developing Debate. London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit in  associa)on with The Sunday Times London. Choice in Welfare No.33.

Accessible at: hdp://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ cw33.pdf.  

Normore, A. (2010) Global Perspec-ves on Educa-onal Leadership Reform: The Development and Prepara-on of Leaders of  Learning and Learners of Leadership. Emerald Group Publishing. Volume 11. 

Pawlyn, M. (2011) Biomimicry in Architecture. 

Pearce, P. (1978) Structure in nature is a strategy for design.  

Schlemmer,O., 1924, Man in an Abstract Room, (Bühne in Bauhaus), edited by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. 19

Thorpe, A. (2012) Architecture & Design versus Consumerism.  

Thorpe, A. (2010) Design’s Role in Sustainable Consump-on.  

Walker, I., Schandl, H. (2017) Social Science and Sustainability. CSIRO Publishing, p.11, p.13.  Wilson, E.O. (1984) Biophilia, The Human Bond with Other Species.  

Wright, F.L. (1925) Frank Lloyd Wright: The Complete 1925 “Wendingen” Series, p.28.  

Articles in journals & Interviews  

Burners-Lee, M. and Clark, D. (2010) 'What's the carbon footprint of... a new car?', The Guardian, 23 September.  Chomsky, N. (2006) ‘Globaliza)on’. Interviewed by Maria Ahmed for Global Agenda, January.  Easton, M. (2006) 'Britain's Happiness in Decline', BBC News, 2 May.

Available at: hdp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ programmes/happiness_formula/4771908.stm  

Hobson, B. (2014) ‘“Growing a city from the bodom up” could save the human race’ Dezeen, 25 May.

Available at: hdps:// www.dezeen.com/2014/05/25/movie-rachel-armstrong-living-architecture-project-persephone/  Cucinella, M (2016) ‘What is Truly Sustainable Design?’, Interface Australia, 5 October. Available at: hdp:// interfacedesignspace.com/what-is-truly-sustainable-design/?sf53192283=1  

Rizi,G.S., Sabeghi, M., (2015) Study of the Role of Iden-ty in Lifestyle and Consump-on, Journal of Applied Environmental  and Biological Sciences, Issue 5.  

Ramzy, N.S. (2015) Sustainable spaces with psychological connota-on, Archness-IJAR, Volume 9, Issue 2. 

Shafik Ramzy, N. (2015) Sustainable spaces with psychological connota-on: historical architecture as reference book for  biomime-c models with biophilic quali-es.  

UN DESA. (2017) 'New Globalisa)on Report: Three mega-trends expected to impact our future', UN News, 19th  October.  

Wilson, E.O. (1984) Biophilia, The Human Bond with Other Species, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p.1. 

Periodicals  

United Na)ons, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Popula)on Division (2017). World Popula-on Prospects: The  2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248. 

Websites  

Dagdeviren,H., Van der Hoeven,R., Weeks,J. (2000), Redistribu-on Macers: Growth for Poverty Reduc-on, SOAS, page 1, 

Available at: hdps://www.soas.ac.uk/economics/research/workingpapers/file28875.pdf [Accessed 1 Nov.  2017].  

Fields Millburn, J. and Nicodemus, R. (2011). The Minimalists. [online]  

Available at: hdps://www.theminimalists.com/about/ [Accessed 27 Aug. 2017].  

Gsa.gov. (n.d.). Sustainable Design. [online]  

Available at: hdps://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-construc)on/design-excellence/sustainability/sustainable design [Accessed 1 Nov. 2017].  

Hudson, P. (2011). The Workshop of the World. [online] bbc.co.uk. 

Available at: hdp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/bri)sh/victorians/workshop_of_the_world_01.shtml [Accessed 23  Oct. 2017].  

Magni, G. (2016). Indigenous knowledge and implica-ons for the sustainable development agenda. [online] 

Available at: hdp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245623E.pdf [Accessed 1 Nov. 2017].  Mediated Mader (2013). Silk Pavilion. [online]  

Available at: hdp://mader.media.mit.edu/environments/details/silk-pavillion.  

Puric, B. (2016) Organic Architecture - The Art of Sustainable Living. [online]  

Available at: hdps://www.widewalls.ch/organic-architecture/ [Accessed: 29 Novembre 2017]. UN(2013). Sustainable Development Challenges. [online]  

Available at: hdps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2843WESS2013.pdf [Accessed 27  Oct. 2017].  

Team, A. (2016). Shinkansen Train. [online] AskNature.org.  

Available at: hdps://asknature.org/idea/shinkansen-train/#.W_k_7acYfx [Accessed 1 Nov. 2017].  Thecrystal.org. (2016). The Crystal. [online]  

Available at: hdps://www.thecrystal.org/brochure/en/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2017]  

The Economist. (1969). Say’s law: supply creates its own demand. [online]  

Available at: hdps://www.economist.com/news/economics-brief/21726050-third-brief-our-series-looks reasoning-made-jean-bap)ste-say [Accessed 27 Aug.. 2017]. 

Film and Videos  

Demain (2017) Directed by Cyril Dion and Mélanie Laurent [Film]  

Design at the intersec-on of technology and biology (2015). Oxman, N. TED Talk. [Video]. Vancouver. Human (2015) Directed by Yann Arthus-Bertrand [Film]