There
is a better way. Nature will tell us. LetÕs listen. LetÕs start mimicking it.
By Peter Schwartzman
Regarding the environment and its health, people
generally fall into two camps. Either they believe that on the whole things are
good and getting better or they are convinced that major problems exist that
deserve our immediate attention. Not surprisingly, both groups can put together
a laundry list of examples to defend their respective positions. And all too
often, people, from either group, spend more time ridiculing the other sideÕs
position than on tackling the tasks at hand. I am here to say, ÒSTOP!Ó Both
groups should sit back, contain their self-righteousness for a while, gather
all their senses, and listen to nature.
Two years
ago, I introduced the concept of biomimicry to The Zephyr audience in a piece entitled, ÒJust when we thought
we were intelligent.Ó Here, after a more thorough reading of the seminal book
on the topic, Janine BenyusÕ Biomimicry (published in 1997 by Perennial), I feel obliged to share more of its
phenomenal insights with you. I truly believe it is a book that will be judged
to be one of the most insightful and important books of the 20th
century. (I realize that this is a very strong claim, but it stems from my
belief that it contains many answers to our deep and perplexing questions about
humanity, Earth, and the prospects for the survival of both.)
First,
letÕs have a quick refresher. Biomimicry is, as described on the back cover of
the BenyusÕ book, as Òa revolutionary new science that analyzes natureÕs best
ideas . . . and adapts them for human use.Ó Typically, humans recognize that
nature contains major feats of ingenuity. Inch for inch or pound for pound,
what human can ever rival the jumping ability of a flea, the speed of a
cheetah, or the flying mastery of a hawk? Yet, humans usually attribute these
ÒskillsÓ to purely physical advantages, not considering for a moment that they
represent ÒintelligenceÓ of any kind. Sure, we began building planes based on
the physical, aerodynamic shape of bird wings—and this was/is an example
of incorporating biomimic values/principles. However, we largely ignored the
fuel the bird used to fly (I donÕt see birds eating million year old carcasses
buried deep within the earth—what we call ÒpetroleumÓ today), and we
certainly didnÕt look at the birds everyday behavior in order to gain other
insights as well (once again, birds donÕt go around creating
biologically-identical worms to eat, do they?). In short, biomimicry tells us
that there are rules that nature follows and when these rules are broken,
species typically vanish from the Earth. And while it is inconceivable for most
of us to contemplate human extinction (especially when we are now larger in
number than ever before), nature, if we would listen and learn from it, might
tell us that our current course of activities (i.e., modern industrialization)
is leading us precisely to this end.
Humans are
collectively acting in ways that are antithetical to future living (what some
call Òsustainable livingÓ). For example, nearly everything we eat contains
poisons in it; poisons that we put in the food supposedly because we have to.
Nearly all consumption of ÒstuffÓ produces huge amounts of throw away,
unusable, and toxic materials. When we are sick, what do we do? We take pills
to make us better rather than attempt to determine why we got sick in the first
place. Most things we manufacture require that we burn huge amounts of fuel
(which puts toxins in our air), use toxic chemicals (such as glues, heavy
metals, and lubricants), and attain unnatural temperatures (in factory ovens)
that produce deathly compounds (like dioxin). Thus, in the modern age, it is
nearly impossible to do anything that isnÕt contributing to the detriment of
our environmental well-being. Yet, as obvious as this observation is, and as
significant its impact, we live as if there is no other way, as if this is the
only way w can live. STOP! It doesnÕt have to be this way. And, there are
better ways and we can realize them if we want to.
If we were
to look at the natural world without preconceived notions of its simplicity and
inferiority, we might just learn something that will allow us to survive (even
flourish as a full humanity in) this millennium. In BenyusÕ book, she outlines
and explains many of these lessons. Simple as they are, most are so profound
that once they settle in and really bounce about the skull a bit, you are left
wondering why it took so long to figure this stuff out. And more importantly,
why is it that our civilization is seemingly so far from realizing or acting on
any of its wisdom? So letÕs take a look at some of these ideas and see if you
too come to a similar conclusion.
In chapter
7 of her book, Benyus lays out a prescription for better ways to conduct
business. And since modern business (industrial style) is so great a presence
on our landscape and in our lives, we might as well start by reconceptualizing
it. There are 10 rules that govern how nature conducts business; weÕll look at
a few of these (and I hope youÕll be motivated to read the book for the
remainder).
ÒGather and use energy efficientlyÓ is something worth
doing, no? We actually know this, but how often do we do it? Anyone who has
seen a satellite photograph of the Earth at night probably marveled at how amazing
it is to see how our civilization has expanded and how big corridors (e.g. the
region from Washington, D.C to Boston, MA—known as ÒBoWashÓ) appear
completely white. But, another way to look at that image is with horror. All of
that light (visible from above the EarthÕs atmosphere) is simply wasted. It
serves no purpose at all (unless we want little green people to visit us soon)
and all of it is associated with the release of poisonous particulates and
climate-changing gases (from coal-fired and natural gas power plants). We also
waste so much of our gasoline in our cars. Consider that 87% of the gas that is
burning in your automobile is not
used to move the car (which is the primary goal, isnÕt it?); it is wasted on
inefficiencies of motors, brakes, traffic patterns, and air conditioning. After
more than 100 years of automobile technology, this is the best that humans have
come up with? (And some think that drilling in Alaska is the best way to tackle
our energy crisis?) Perhaps it is time to look elsewhere for a solution.
Plants,
yes, plants—those brainless life forms that we have a love-hate
relationship with—are extremely economically and efficient organisms. All
the plants on the planet use only 2% of all the sun energy which reaches the
surface. Yet, with this seemingly trivial amount, they are extremely frugal.
They are 95% efficient (compared to our cars at 13%) with the energy that they
absorb! Who are the best engineers on the planet? (Hint: They arenÕt the ones
with degrees from MIT or Harvey Mudd—where I went to school.) Thus, if we
could learn how the photosynthetic process maintains such a high efficiency, we
would be able to reduce our climate impact of cars (overnight) by at least 82%
(95-13)! So, how much money is going into photosynthetic research (from a
technological point of view) as compared to the internal combustion engine? Do
we recognize how important the answer to this question is relative to the
impending climate change crisis or the thousands of our neighbors who die
prematurely because of emissions from cars, trucks and SUVs?
ÒDonÕt draw
down resourcesÓ is a mantra rooted in the souls of life forms. Organisms live
on Òharvestable interest, not principalÓ (Benyus). Tearing up our agricultural lands
(for coal, as is recommended by our Democratic governor) and drilling in
Refuges or continental ocean shelves (as has been prescribed by Republican-led
Congresses over the last decade) are activities clearly at odds with natureÕs ways. No wonder then, our
current energy policy (or, Òaddiction to oil,Ó as the President himself has
described it) has us spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually (to keep
a military presence in the country with the second largest oil reserves on the
planet), destroying beautiful mountain tops (in Appalachia), and planning to
destroy vast areas of Illinois (for ÒcleanÓ coal, a clear oxymoron when it
requires the devastation of huge tracks of agriculturally- or
biologically-productive land). There has to be a better way. And there is.
Nature
relies on renewable resources to survive (not finite, fossilized ones). We will
need to do the same to survive this millennium. Why not start ASAP and avoid
all the wars, pollution, scarring of landscape, and risk (of nuclear meltdown
or terrorist nuclear ÒsuitcaseÓ bombs) that are now firmly imbedded in our
energy economy? How might we jump start this transition? Not by increasing
subsidies to oil and coal (that is for sure). If we shifted the billions of
dollars of subsidies (which today is on the order of $20-$30 billion) that
currently go to the oil and gas industries to renewable energy R&D, this
would be a great start. Kudos to the recent U.S. House of Representatives who
in its first 100 hours actually did something beneficial to all of
us—cutting billions of dollars of subsidies to Big Oil and earmarking
much of the revenue created for the promotion of renewable energy forms; the
vote was 264-163, by the way, so it wasnÕt just ÒwackoÓ liberals who were for
it. This policy is a start, and it still has to pass in the Senate (and get the
PresidentÕs signature), but perhaps it represents the beginnings of a wholesale
change in perspective, a recognition that what weÕve been doing isnÕt working
and a better way is possible. LetÕs hope biomimicry also plays a role in how
future renewable resources are developed, extracted, disseminated, and used.
ÒDonÕt foul oneÕs nestÓ is another principle organisms
live by. Do we? The even more amazing aspect of plant genius is realized in the
environmental conditions (temperature, pressure and chemical soup) in which
they secure the sunÕs energy. While we ÒsmartÓ beings ÒmustÓ burn coal, gas,
and ethanol (or extract radioactive materials from the ground—in nuclear
power) to get sufficient energy to live the way we do, plants do everything at
livable temperatures, with chemicals that are safe. Furthermore, the byproducts
of our fuel burning/use contaminate the air, water, and soil, whereas plants
produce oxygen as the major byproduct of their energy extraction. In fact, name
a species, other than homo sapiens,
which harnesses the energy that it needs by destroying landscapes, producing
toxins, and defiling their neighborhoods. Thus, it is clearly unnatural to have
coal power plants in urban centers (there are two inside ChicagoÕs city limits,
both of which are grandfathered out of the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s) and to
use toxic chemicals to get our foods to grow (which pollute our bodies when we
eat, not to mention the unnecessary killing it does to nearly all organisms
attempting to coexist on this planet—the only one currently known to
contain life).
However, as absurd as all this sounds, the clearest
example of how ridiculous we are came to our attention fairly recently. Our
homes are one of the most toxic places we know of! Air quality in most homes is
much, much worse than air quality outside. Why? Well, we fill them with toxic
paints/lacquers/varnish, carcinogenic PVC flooring and toys (even teething
toys!), formaldehyde-laced particle board, petroleum-based
rugs/curtains/couches, toxic cleaning chemicals (what an oxymoron), etc. Since
these products all aerosolize (meaning that they go from liquid/solid to
gaseous form), they fill our interior air with toxic substances. There has got
to be a better way, doesnÕt there? Once again plants (and their natural fibers)
show us how.
ÒDiversify
and Cooperate to Fully Use the HabitatÓ is something we definitely arenÕt
doing. Field after field of genetically-modified (and homogenous) corn/soy crop
symbolizes a system so broken it is hard (or potentially impossible to fix);
some have argued that the irreversibility of ÒadvancedÓ forms of agriculture is
done consciously (by those who seek to monopolize off our dinner plates for the
foreseeable future). Biological research has shown, time and time again, that
organisms are often working in tandem to secure sufficient resources. And while
we have found numerous examples where two species (such as the goby fish and
grouper or the oxbird and the hippo) have developed such symbiotic (i.e.,
mutually beneficial) relationships, there is mounting evidence to suggest that
all species in an evolved ecosystem (such as a prairie) are actually working
together to survive. Our inability to fully appreciate these supportive relationships
is primarily a function of the complexity of systems with more than two members
(similar to the Òthree-body problemÓ in physics). This ÒsupportiveÓ tendency
flies directly in the face of the dominant perspective that drives our economic
models and our relationships with other species—the one that says that
this is a Òdog-eat-dogÓ world where everyone is in competition with another and
only the most fiercest and most stubborn survive. Fortunately, this isnÕt how
mature ecosystems act and survive.
We can look
to our relationship with soils for a poignant example that drives home how
transformative might be the incorporation of a simple biomimic
principle—cooperation. Currently, to grow our crops, in our ÒadvancedÓ
agricultural system, we attempt to eliminate all other plants from our fields
(based on the assumption that they will undoubtedly compete for limited
resources and therefore lower production levels). By forcing the issue this way
(i.e., allowing only one plant species to exist), we greatly diminish the
diversity of the soils as well. Soils do not just consist of dirt (some
brownish stuff containing nitrogen). Rather, they are extremely diverse,
incredibly intricate networks of living and non-living material which contain
thousands of different chemicals and microorganisms. It is these chemicals that
have been produced by the microorganisms (or abiotic weathering) which reside
below the surface acting in synergy with the hundreds of larger plants and
animals which live above it. When we decide to treat soils solely as
storehouses for nitrogen, we are really missing the point. Recognizing how we
have destroyed (and continue to destroy) diversity (and the millions of
interconnections as well) in the name of monocultural profiteering, are we surprised
to find out that: (1) ÒIn Iowa, up to six bushels of soil are washed out to sea
for every bushel of corn producedÓ; (2) Over the 20th century, by
Òtilling the prairie soils of North America, we have lost one third of their
topsoil, and up to 50 percent of their original fertilityÓ (Jon Pipers in
Benyus); (3) Society Òspends ten kilocalories of hydrocarbons to produce one
kilocalorie of foodÓ; or, (4) Despite Òpounding the United States with 2.2
billion pounds of pesticides annually, crop loses have increased 20 percentÓ
since 1945 (Benyus)? There has to be a better way, doesnÕt there?
Throughout
the world today, and throughout human history, farmers have been practicing
much more natural methods to produce crops—without the need of
petroleum-based pesticides, without the need to create monocultures, and
without the need of artificial fertilizer (which is also made from petroleum).
Today, for instance, some Japanese farmers have reverted back to traditional
ways of farming rice. These methods which allow for the growth of rice, fish,
and duck eggs, all on the same field, produces much more protein and calories
than monocultured-rice fields, and does so with very limit petrochemical input.
Sounds incredible? Sure it does, but that is because our arrogance has driven
us to Òdecouple ourselves from natureÓ (Benyus) rather than assuming that it
knows best and we should spend more time trying to understand (and mimic) it.
Biomimicry isnÕt just valuable in
creating new principles by which to guide our actions, it has many immediate
practical uses too (a few of which were mentioned above). Ultimately, it
provides the needed paradigm shift that may allow us to live more in keeping
with our environment and all of its members. All of the principles described here
are the laws that nature follows. If we are arrogant and continue to think that
we are somehow superior to nature, we will eventually (and perhaps sooner than
any of us think, if the extreme predictions of climate change bear out, or
other unknown thresholds are passed) go the way of the dinosaurs. At least the
dinosaurs didnÕt perish by fault of their own arrogance (they were just unfit
to live in a post-meteorite world). WouldnÕt it be a tragedy if the ÒsmartestÓ
species to have roamed the planet was actually the first to consciously
eliminate itself from it? When one considers that we have willfully created
enough nuclear weapons to destroy all of humanity, it should be abundantly
obvious how misdirected we have been (especially considering how much money,
and natural resources, were used to manufacture all of these weapons). It is
time to try another pathway.
Consider
that I have only touched the surface of the insights and wisdom contained in
Janine BenyusÕ book, Biomimicry.
As such, donÕt you think it would be worthwhile to pick it up and read it?
DonÕt you think it deserves to be read in every high school and college biology
class as well? So, read it, then pass it on to someone else who might do the
same. Forty-six years ago, Pete Seeger wrote/sang, ÒWhen will we ever learn?Ó
IsnÕt time that we really began to learn from the other 30 million (yet
diminishing quickly) species that coexist on the planet we call Earth? If not
now, when?
Peter Schwartzman (email: drearth1@gmail.com) is
associate professor and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox
College. Father to two amazing girls, Peter hopes that their lives will be
lived on a cleaner, more just, more environmentally-aware planet. A
nationally-ranked Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder and maintainer of
websites dedicated to peace, empowerment, and environmental well-being: www.onehuman.org;
www.blackthornhill.org;
& www.chicagocleanpower.org.
1/25/07