Biomimicry as a design concept is indeed revolutionary in its implications for human systems of production, but it is a concept in need of further philosophical elaboration and development. To this end certain philosophical principles underlying the organization of living systems generally are identified and it is argued that not only our systems of production but also our psychocultural patterns of desire need to be reorganized in accordance with these principles if we are collectively to achieve the integration into nature to which biomimicry aspires. Even were this reorganization to be effected however, there is still an ethically momentous ambiguity in biomimicry that needs to be teased out before we can be assured that biomimicry will indeed produce the bioinclusive sustainability outcomes that it seems to promise.
AmesR. T. (1989). Putting the Te back into Taoism. In CallicottJ. B.AmesR. T. (Eds.), Nature in Asian traditions of thought: Essays in environmental philosophy (pp. 113-144). Albany: State University of New York Press.
2.
AndrewsP. (2006). Back from the brink. Sydney, Australia: ABC Books.
3.
BenyusJ. (2002a). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
4.
BenyusJ. (2002b, November). Innovations inspired by nature. Speech in Doors of perception, 7: Flow (Conference on Design and Innovation, Amsterdam, Netherlands). Retrieved from http://flow.doorsofperception.com/content/benyus_trans.html
5.
BortoftH. (1996).The wholeness of nature: Goethe’s way of science. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfarne.
6.
BrookI. H. (2009). Dualism, monism and the wonder of materiality as revealed through Goethean observation. PAN Philosophy Activism Nature, (6), 31-39.
7.
CallicottJ. B. (1989). The conceptual foundations of the land ethic. In In defense of the land ethic. Albany: State University of New York Press.
8.
CallicottJ. B. (1994). The role of technology in the evolving concept of nature. In FerréF.HartelP. (Eds.), Ethics and environmental policy: Theory meets practice (pp. 58-83). Athens: University of Georgia Press.
9.
ChuK. S. (2009). Genetic Architecture of Possible Worlds. Retrieved from http://GenCity.org
10.
DavisonA. (2007). Review of the book City of flows: Modernity, nature and the city, by KaikaM.Organization & Environment, 20, 263-265.
11.
DevallB. (1988). The ecological self. In Simple in means, rich in ends: Practicing deep ecology. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith.
12.
DevallB.SessionsG. (1985). Deep ecology: Living as if nature mattered. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith.
13.
ElliotR. (1997). Faking nature: The ethics of environmental restoration. London, England: Routledge.
14.
FoxW. (1990). Towards a transpersonal ecology: Developing new foundations for environmentalism. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
15.
GilesH. (1889). Chuang Tzu: Mystic, moralist and social reformer. London, England: Bernard Quaritch.
16.
GirardotN. J.MillerJ.XiaoganL. (Eds.). (2001). Daoism and ecology: Ways within a cosmic landscape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School.
17.
GoodpasterK. (1978). On being morally considerable. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 308-325.
18.
HamillS.SeatonJ. P. (Eds. Trans.). (1998). The essential Chuang Tzu. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
19.
HeydT. (2007) Encountering Nature: Towards an Environmental Culture, Ashgate, Williston VT.
20.
JullienF. (1999). The propensity of things (LloydJ., Trans.). New York, NY: Zone Books.
21.
KasperD. V. S. (2009). Ecological habitus: Towards a better understanding of socioecological relations. Organization & Environment, 22, 311-326.
22.
KohakE. (1984). The embers and the stars: A philosophical enquiry into the moral sense of nature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
LafargueM. (1992). The Tao of the Tao te ching: A translation and commentary. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
LeeK. (1999). The natural and the artefactual. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
25.
LeopoldA. (1949). The land ethic. In A sand county almanac. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26.
MathewsF. (1991). The ecological self. London, England: Routledge.
27.
MathewsF. (2003). For Love of Matter: a Contemporary Panpsychism., Albany. SUNY Press.
28.
MathewsF. (2005). Reinhabiting reality: Towards a recovery of culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
29.
MathewsF. (2006). Beyond modernity and tradition: Towards a third way for development. Ethics & the Environment, 11(2), 85-114.
30.
MathewsF. (2008). Thinking from within the calyx of nature. Environmental Values, 17, 41-65.
31.
MathewsF. (2011). On desiring nature. Indian Journal of Ecocriticism, 3, 1-9.
32.
McDonoughW. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York, NY: North Point Press.
NortonB. (1992). Toward unity amongst environmentalists. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
PlumwoodV. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London, England: Routledge.
39.
PlumwoodV. (2004). Environmental culture. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales.
40.
RodmanJ. (1995). Four forms of ecological consciousness reconsidered. In DrengsonA.InoueY. (Eds.), The deep ecology movement: An introductory anthology (pp. 242-256). Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
41.
RolstonH.III (1991). Environmental ethics: Values in and duties to the natural world. In BormannF. H.KellertS. R. (Eds.), Ecology, economics, ethics: The broken circle (pp. 73-96). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
RoutleyR. (1973). Is there a need for new, an environmental, ethic? In Proceedings of the 15th World Congress of Philosophy, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-210). Varna, Bulgaria. (Expanded and republished with V. Routley (1982). Human chauvinism and environmental ethics. In D. Mannison, M. McRobbie, & R. Routley (Eds.), Environmental philosophy. Canberra: Australian National University)
