This article analyses the philosophical status and ground of biomimicry's most distinctive principle: nature as measure. Starting with the argument that this principle is ethically normative, I go on to compare the ecological ethic it embodies with Aldo Leopold's land ethic. In so doing, I argue that the ultimate measure against which the ethical rightness of our actions should be judged is the way of being of Gaia, which is to let be her present inhabitants. I then explore the idea that taking as measure Gaia's way of being provides powerful responses to a number of longstanding problems in environmental ethics, including the question of its ‘centre’, duties to preserve and restore nature, and duties to present and future beings.
AhlV., and AllenT.F.. 1996. Hierarchy Theory: A Vision, Vocabulary, and Epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
2.
Aristotle. 1996. Physics, trans. WaterfieldR.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BaldwinD.A., de LuceJ. and PletschC. (eds). 1994. Beyond Preservation: Restoring and Inventing Landscapes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
BallP.2001. ‘Life's lessons in design’. Nature409: 413–416. Crossref.
5.
BarbourM.1995. ‘Ecological fragmentation in the fifties’. In CrononW., (ed.) Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, pp. 233–255. New York: Norton.
6.
BenyusJ.1997. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature. New York: Harper Perennial.
7.
BhushanB.2009. ‘Biomimetics: lessons from nature – an overview’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A367: 1445–1486. Crossref.
8.
BlokV., and GremmenB.. 2016. ‘Ecological innovation: biomimicry as a new way of thinking and acting ecologically’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics29: 203–217. Crossref.
9.
BlumenbergH.2010. L'imitation de la nature: et autres essais esthétiques. Paris: Hermann.
10.
BungeM.1983. ‘Toward a Philosophy of Technology’. In MitchamK. and MackeyR. (eds), Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, pp. 62–76. New York: Free Press.
11.
CallicottJ.B.1996. ‘Do deconstructive ecology and sociobiology undermine Leopold's land ethic?’. Environmental Ethics18: 353–372. Crossref.
12.
CallicottJ.B.2013. Thinking like a Planet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
CapraF.1997. The Web of Life. London: Harper Collins.
14.
CassirerE.2014. ‘Form and technology’. The Warburg Years (1919–1933): Essays on Language, Art, Myth, and Technology, trans. LoftS.G. and CalcagnoA., pp. 272–316. New Haven: Yale University Press.
15.
ClementsF.E.1916. Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation. Washington: Carnegie Institution.
16.
DessauerF.1927. Philosophie der Technik: Das Problem des Realisierung. Bonn: Cohen.
17.
DessauerF.1983. ‘Technology in its proper sphere’. In MitchamK. and MackeyR. (eds), Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology2nd edn, pp. 317–34. New York: Free Press.
18.
DicksH.2017. ‘A new way of valuing nature: articulating biomimicry and ecosystem services’. Environmental Ethics39: 281–299. Crossref.
19.
EythM.1924. Lebendige Kräfte: Sieben Vorträge aus dem Gebiete der Technik. Berlin: Springer.
20.
FeiblemanJ.1983. ‘Pure science, applied science, and technology: an attempt at defini-tions’. In MitchamK. and MackeyR. (eds), Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, pp. 33–41. New York: Free Press.
21.
GleasonH.1926. ‘The individualistic concept of the plant association’. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club53: 7–26. Crossref.
22.
HeideggerM.1998. ‘On the essence and concept of physis in Aristotle's Physics B 1’. Pathmarks, pp. 183–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
JacksonW.2011. Nature as Measure: The Selected Essays of Wes Jackson. Berkeley: Counterpoint.
24.
JarvieI.C.1983. ‘Technology and the structure of knowledge’. In MitchamK. and MackeyR. (eds), Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, 2nd edn, pp. 54–61. New York: Free Press.
25.
JonasH.1985. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for a Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
KauffmanS.1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
LeopoldA.1968 [1949]. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
LovelockJ.2009 [1979]. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
MargulisL., and SaganD.. 1995. What is Life?Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
MaturanaH., and VarelaF.. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel.
31.
MitchamC.1994. Thinking through Technology: The Path between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
MorinE.1977. La méthode, tome 1: la nature de la nature. Paris: Seuil.
33.
OdumE.P.1953. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: Saunders.
34.
O'NeillR.V., DeAngelisD.L., WaideJ.B. and AllenT.F.H.. 1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35.
Pedersen ZariM.2015. ‘Ecosystem services analysis: mimicking ecosystem services for regenerative urban design’. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment4: 145–157. Crossref.
36.
SkolimowskiH.1983. ‘The structure of thinking in technology’. In MitchamK. and MackeyR. (eds), Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, 2nd edn, pp. 42–49. New York: Free Press.
37.
TansleyA.1935. ‘The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms’. Ecology16: 284–307. Crossref.
38.
TaylorP.1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
39.
TurnerJ.2003. The Sunflower Forest: Ecological Restoration and the New Communion with Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development).1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
