Mother Nature's Design Workshop

abb_road writes "Scientists creating new surveillance and defense technologies are studying the insect world for inspiration. Biomimetic researchers working on devices ranging from 360 degree lenses to mine-disabling robots are using biological principals as the backbone of their work. From the article: 'The tried-and-true designs of many insects are the product of millions of years of evolution. Even so, they are not perfect models. Natural selection isn't just a matter of physiological perfection, but how an organism's traits suit it for a particular environment, scientists say. For this reason, Bandyopadhyay stresses it is important not to just copy nature's work, but to take the best parts of it and apply it elsewhere.'"

Comments

Nature is not perfect

[tygerstripes]

This is widely known - in fact it's the whole basis of Natural Selection. However, there's a more fundamental thing to consider.
There are numerous examples of technological advances (usually mechanical or chemical, since that's the focus of TFA and of nature-mimicry) which could never have been acheived through natural selection. Quite apart from their being impractical in biological circumstances the incremental, intermediary stages in the evolution of such developments would be so impractical as to render the finished "product" impossible through natural selection.
You know where this is going. The wheel.

It's thought through a lot by school-kids - why (except for micro-biological exceptions) do biological equivalents not exist in nature? The average /.er can come up with some decent reasons, no doubt.
This is not to detract from the study of nature and the possible applications of mimicking it, but I'm often surprised at how this kind of study is viewed as an "impressive insight" or whatever. Nature has been the starting point for most inventive inspirations since time began, and returning to those principles does not warrant praise.
Necessity is the mother of invention, but Nature is its wetnurse.

Re:Flight

[tibike77]

Regardless, in the end, "modern" human flight was achieved by mimicked birds afterall, at least partially.
The idea of a wing (doesn't really matter if fixed or morphable) still is the basic principle behind flying... we just didn't get the same propulsion style (propeller/jet).
Even funnier, matching engineering closer with nature and "taking the best parts" out of each WAS a complete success almost every time... just think how planes evolved from the shabby kite-like wings of early functional models towards the bird-wing like or even variable geometry airplane wings used in some of today's aircrafts.

So you see, what I can't agree with you is this part: "But even where the ''best parts of it'' apply, it still may not be the best option for man."
I'm just saying you either haven't selected "the best parts" yet, or simply our current technology can't match the required complexity/reliability.

In the end, it's all about what can be made to work or not.
As for "the idea" behind some potentially great invention in the future, chances are mimicking nature is still the best bet.

Re:Flight

[bcat24]

Remember that God created animals in a non-technologically perfect form since their purpose is to serve humans. If He had created them perfectly, they would be better than humans. Therefore, we should not rely solely on them for inspiration in our technology as they are not optimized by Him. They were deliberately made to be inferior to humans so that we could harness them and use them for our needs. We should also avoid from mimicking God's work as we may anger Him and incur the fury of the Lord Almighty (that's not good).

Some Christians, myself included, would disagree. The greatest honor we can give God is to look at his creation and be inspired to imitate it, since it reflects God's likeness.

I think subcreation, as the late, great Tolkien called it, is the natural course of action. Remember Aulë and the Dwarves.

Evolution doesn't produce perfect solutions

[stokes]

Perhaps I'm just being nit-picky about hyperbole, but evolution/Natural Selection doesn't produce optimal results; it produces things that just barely satisfy the requirements for survival/reproduction. Evolution doesn't make plans in advance.

Re:Flight

[Anonymous Coward]

"The greatest honor we can give God is to look at his creation and be inspired to imitate it, since it reflects God's likeness."

Thanx for the insperation. I'll remember that next time I kill that parasite mosquito that's sucking the blood out of my arm.

National Selectino isn't about perfection at all

[csoto]

Saying this demonstrates a profoundly naiive understanding of the Theory of Evolution. There is no "perfect" in biology. There is just genetics. Something happens and you have genes to take advantage (or simply avoid disaster), then you survive to reproduce your genes. Over time, your genes survive. Perfect isn't anywhere in this equation.

NOTE TO SCIENTISTS: Learn to properly represent Evolution. There are lots of idiots out there who already want to bend and twist it to fit their theist agenda!

Applying nature's defenses elsewhere(karma)

[WillAffleckUW]

From the post, "Bandyopadhyay stresses it is important not to just copy nature's work, but to take the best parts of it and apply it elsewhere."

Of course, just because a specific plant or animal is effective at killing off an unwanted pest doesn't mean it's a good thing to use it somewhere else. An example in point would be the use of certain poisonous snakes which ended up killing off songbirds on islands that had no defenses either, or the use of certain diurnal creatures to hunt nocturnal creatures - and then end up eating the diurnal protected species instead.

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do something. Nuclear fission taught us that.