‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

Just what is biomimicry and how does it differ from design for eco-services?
Biomimicry looks for solutions in nature. To take a simple example, silk is stronger than steel, so it 
makes sense to research and apply its secrets. But biomimicry has tended to focus on the design of hi-
tech, 
patentable
products. Some designs that come under the banner of biomimicry involve high costs, 
embodied energy and risks (eg new chemicals or genetic engineering).
52
Cities and buildings should 
indeed draw ideas from nature 
and
emulate ecosystems. But in the case of the built environment, 
accessible and locally available resources are usually more appropriate, because of the amount and 
scale of materials required in construction. Thus, in the context of market capitalism, biomimicry 
– when applied to building technology – could perpetuate the current tendency to substitute nature 
with resource-intensive and often unnecessary products in lieu of passive solar solutions. Also, as 
currently conceived, biomimicry could continue the trend towards sterilization in lieu of, say, design 
for fertilization. We need therefore to add a caveat to biomimicry. Regions, cities and buildings 
should be designed on the model of a whole forest or reef, rather than mimicking spiders, molluscs or 
blue bottles in isolation from their environments. While low-cost built environment design solutions 
are already widely available, we still under-design for passive systems and rely on hi-tech solutions 
[Chapter 6]. The 
scale
of the built environment should preclude capital-intensive solutions, whether 
inspired by biomimicry or not.
What are some examples of hi-tech solutions that are being promoted?
Most hi-tech innovation is still not directed towards sustainability. Eco-innovation would result in 
net positive, safe, secure environments that create reversible, adaptable and diverse future options.
They would reduce the grounds for conflict over space and resources. Hi-tech, capital-intensive 
solutions have been favoured at the expense of low-cost design solutions, such as greening the 
built environment. They generally increase the disparity of wealth and/or power. Recently a TV 
documentary (supported by NASA) presented five solutions to global warming:
1
Sunshade
: Firing 16 trillion one-gram glass disks into space to divert the sun’s rays. This 
would take 30 years, cost 4 trillion dollars and give a whole new meaning to flying 
saucers.
2
Sulphur blanket
: Firing rockets into the air to put 1 million tonnes of sulphur 25 kilometres 
into the stratosphere. This could increase acid rain and damage the ozone layer. The
inventor argued that we should reverse environmental regulations, which have reduced
pollution but increased global warming.
3
Denser clouds
: Making clouds more reflective by building ships with 10-metre vertical rotors 
that shoot sea water vapour into the clouds like a spray gun. Salty residue in the water goes
into clouds, which makes the clouds denser. We would need 50 ships a year.
53
4
Phytoplankton
: Nitrogen-rich urea granules (fertilizer) would nourish the ocean’s
phytoplankton, which both release oxygen and die and sink to the ocean floor taking CO
2
with them. How this would affect the ecological balance of the oceans is not known.
5