From biomimicry to robotic co-creation: rethinking the boundaries between nature and technology

This paper is an invitation to an interdisciplinary dialogue on new possibilities for integrating robotics, design, and nature. I ask: how can new cross-movements between bio-inspired science and design be fostered? How might we envision the future possible intersection between technology and nature? First, I recall key aspects of classical bioinspired engineering and highlight the role of nature in the emergence of technology. Second, I introduce a new approach to bioinspired engineering. In this approach, robots play an active role in design and construction, learning from material properties to form new shapes and thus reshaping design paradigms. The distinctive elements of this approach depart from classical nature-inspired engineering and foster a symbiotic relationship between technology and nature. I conclude by reflecting on the intersections of nature, technology, and design, and envisioning new avenues for interdisciplinary dialogue that foster collaboration and innovation among diverse bio-inspired disciplines.

In response to constant economic and environmental challenges, the quest for sustainable technologies has surged.This pursuit has also prompted engineers and scientists to reevaluate the role of robotics in bio-inspired design process.As happened in the past [1][2][3][4][5], collaboration between biologists, roboticists, engineers, and architectural designers should also emerge today as a catalyst for exploring the fusion of material performance, robotics, and shared agency.This would pave the way for groundbreaking advancements in both robotic science and bioinspired engineering [6,7].
The following theoretical considerations are an invitation to embrace new ways of interdisciplinary dialogue, to stimulate creativity and spark the imagination to explore the tangible possibilities of integrating robotics, design, and nature within our rapidly evolving technological landscape: How can new cross-movements between bio-inspired science and design be fostered and what broader benefits can they generate?What might the intersection of technology and nature look like in the future?
To address this, I will begin by briefly recalling what I named the 'classical bio-inspired engineering' and its key tenets.Central to this approach is the concept of a structured nature, given independently from the scientist.Technology emerges through the translation of natural structures into the realm of the artificial.Design involves deciding which elements of nature to isolate and translate into technology, thus shaping the essence of the final product.
In section 2, I will move to an innovative design practice in which robots take on roles as both design and construction agents.Within this approach, robots gradually explore material properties to design new forms.This practice represents a paradigm shift in bio-inspired design.Robots not only perform tasks, but also contribute to the design process through learned insights, fundamentally changing the landscape of construction.
Successively, I will delve into the distinctive components that define this novel approach.These elements mark a departure from classical natureinspired engineering and pave the way for a more symbiotic interaction between technology and nature.Design is no longer based on the inspiration of nature or mimesis, but rather on tuning the properties of organic matter with those of robotics.
Finally, I will reflect on the intersection of nature, technology, and design to outline the foundational elements for a promising and forward-looking interdisciplinary dialogue.This dialogue has the potential to foster breakthrough collaborations and innovations across multiple bioinspired disciplines with the goal of bridging nature and technology differently.

Classical nature-inspired engineering
Nature-inspired fields such as biomimicry, biomimetics, and biorobotics take inspiration from how the intricate processes of the natural world unfold [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].This includes the complex interactions between different living organisms, materials, and environments.Experts with diverse backgrounds in biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and computer science work closely together to develop practical solutions that mimic these natural systems.Each discipline brings its own expertise to the table, deepening our understanding of how nature works and leading to creative and unexpected solutions to complex problems.Both fields require a strong understanding of biology, engineering, and materials science.Successful solutions emerge from the collaboration and synergy of experts in these diverse fields, resulting in tangible and effective real-world answers.
Indeed, one of the classical definitions of biomimetics stresses this act of transition from the biological to the technological domain: 'Biomimetics combines the disciplines of biology and technology with the goal of solving technical problems through the abstraction, transfer, and application of knowledge gained from biological models.Biological models in the sense of this definition are biological processes, materials, structures, functions, organisms, and principles of success as well as the process of evolution itself ' [5].
The same can be said for biomimicry.In a classic text, scientist Janine M. Benyus defines the goals of biomimetics by saying that it looks at nature from three different perspectives [8].First, nature is seen as a model; second, nature is seen as measure; third, nature is seen as a mentor [10,17,18].
This process has deep historical roots.For example, the Austro-Hungarian botanist Raoul Heinrich Francé (1874-1943) coined the term Biotechnik as a union of Biologie (Biology) and Technik (Technology) [6,19,20].In one iconic passage, Francé described the newly emerging relationship between organic forms and technology with these words: 'When one walks through the world of plants with the new view […], field and garden, meadow and forest, the small world of the water drop is suddenly transformed into a kind of open-air museum and collection of models of technical wonders in the manner of those museums from which the artisans are accustomed to draw inspiration for their work from the collected treasures of the past' [21].According to Francé, organic forms inspire and enable technical creativity because they are already a technical solution for overcoming a problem that can be implemented technically.
Thus, in what I call 'classical nature-inspired engineering'1 , technology emerges through a transfer of the structures of nature into the technological domain, either from a biological push process (the so-called 'bottom-up approach') or from a technological pull process (the so-called 'top-down approach') [11,22].Although these processes have been theoretically and philosophically grounded in a variety of ways [10,[23][24][25][26], they share a common feature: the designer chooses what to learn from nature and transfer into the technological realm.At first glance, and when considered as a source of justification, this process could lead to what has been called the naturalistic fallacy.According to British philosopher George Edward Moore (1873Moore ( -1958)), the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that something is good because it is natural [27,28].As Moore put it in his 1903 Principia ethica 'to argue that a thing is good because it is natural, or bad because it is unnatural, in these common senses of the term, is therefore certainly fallacious; and yet such arguments are very frequently used' [28].Philosophers Vincent Blok and Bart Gremmen noted that 'the strong concept of biomimicry commits the naturalistic fallacy because it claims that technological innovations are good because they are based on principles of nature' [27].As a result, as has been repeatedly emphasized [25,[29][30][31][32], nature cannot be used as a source of justification for bio-inspired processes.
In the next section, I introduce a different approach to bio-inspired design.According to this approach, there is no need for strict natural blueprints, as in classical nature-inspired engineering, to design (and justify) bio-inspired structures.

Technology as designer
Architects Achim Menges and Thomas Wortmann recently published a programmatic paper which proposes a different methodology to develop bioinspired design [33].In it, the architects depict the new merging between artificial intelligence, physical performance, and robotics.Design can be rethought using new technologies and the integration of natural forms (with their performance), active matter, AI, and robotics (see figure 1).This marks transition toward self-governing and autonomous constructive robotics.
In the realm of architecture, the authors propose a novel architectural paradigm emphasizing performance, integration, and interdisciplinary collaboration, challenging traditional design practices and prompting a reevaluation of construction methods [34].
A significant aspect of this rethinking process involves the integration of AI methods into the development of an agent-based design framework.This integration expands the possibilities of architectural design beyond predetermined and fixed rules, allowing for more adaptive and innovative solutions.
Another crucial shift in architectural practice is the transition from a top-down control approach to a bottom-up, self-organizing process driven by material feedback.This new approach eliminates the need for strict blueprints and instead focuses on building based on performance criteria.
Robots play a significant role in this paradigm shift, as they are employed as design/builder agents.These robots adapt their actions to the current conditions and the presence of other agents, while also developing a degree of responsiveness about material properties.This allows for intelligent assembly of structures [35].
Furthermore, the use of reinforcement learning in robotic construction paves the way for the development of autonomous or self-governing robotic agents.Through the process of learning and adaptation, robots gain the ability to make decisions independently.
As a result, 'the robots gain self-awareness of their bodies and intuition about the bamboo's material properties, and use this awareness and intuition to interact with individual bamboo culm bundles.… Instead of regarding the biological variation of natural materials as an obstacle, this project leverages it with distributed robotics and AI into an effective, sustainable, light-touch construction method' [33].In this approach, the designer no longer chooses what to learn from nature, but rather develops systems in which the performance of the material can be exploited.

Bridging technological and biological languages: robots in design
What new horizons for bioinspired design processes and advances in bioinspired science might drive this second approach?As in biorobotics [7,36], robots are used in Menges and Wortmann's approach as embodied models capable of operating and engaging with the real world.As robots in biorobotics, they enable us to explore 'partially observable structures' [33].They enable us to experiment and control unknown and difficult properties of the world.In essence, the robot transforms from a passive tool into an active, embodied entity, enabling the exploration and realization of fresh possibilities, akin to their role in biorobotics where they contribute to knowledge and design formation [13,14,37,38].
Similar to interactive biorobotics, where robots are used to stimulate living systems in controlled experimental settings [39], in the design process the robots attain self-awareness of their bodies, informing their structural processing and receiving material feedback for operational guidance.
Moreover, the collaboration between human designers and robots introduces the concept of joint agency and shared decision-making.This raises philosophical questions about the nature of human-machine interaction, including issues of trust, responsibility, and the distribution of decisionmaking authority-questions differently addressed in biorobotics.
Second, the encounter between the technological language of human-programmed robots and the intrinsic code of biological matter holds profound implications for our understanding of the relationship between humans, technology, and nature.In the practice of synthesizing AI embodied in robots with physical performance, a fascinating process of translation and convergence of two distinct languages takes place.
On one hand, we have the technological language, which represents the instructions and commands programmed into the robots by humans.This language is rooted in our understanding of technology, algorithms, and computation [25,[40][41][42][43]. On the other hand, there is the biological language, the inherent code embedded within the very fabric of living matter.It comprises the intricate processes, behaviors and properties that make up biological entities and that scientists can categorize and understand propositionally through intervention and representation-to paraphrase Ian Hacking's famous book [44].
The encounter between these languages serves as a bridge, facilitating communication and exchange between the realms of the technological and the biological.It is through this interaction that a common and organic language emerges, one that unites the diverse aspects of both worlds.This shared language transcends the boundaries between the biological and the technological, offering a platform for collaboration and coexistence.

Outlook
Where do we go from here?What common pillars can emerge to shape the future of robotics and bio-inspired engineering?First, the integration of robots as design/builder agents challenges our conventional understanding of technology as a separate entity from human agency and creativity.It prompts inquiries about the role of robots and how they influence the design of a new layered environment.Additionally, the interaction between human designers and intelligent machines introduces joint agency and shared decision-making, posing ethical questions about trust, responsibility, and decision authority.In turn, this generates a deeper philosophical debate about the different or similar ontological status of organisms, objects, and robots (see, for instance [6,45]).
Second, the call for a more collaborative and responsive approach in architectural practice and biorobotics raises philosophical questions about the broader dynamics of formation of knowledge.It emphasizes the significance of knowledge circulation between disciplines and the need to go beyond disciplinary boundaries to foster innovation.This challenges traditional views of knowledge acquisition.
Third, In the evolving interaction between robotics and the natural world, the function of material forms and their performance are undergoing a radical change.This transformation encompasses a move away from primarily biological inspiration proper to classical nature-inspired engineering to design processes that can grasp the importance of materials and confront their potential capabilities.It is no longer necessary for the robot to be biologically inspired, but it must possess the ability to identify the inherent structures present in natural forms and interact with them accordingly 2 .In other words, the biohybrid system is externalized through robots' interactions with nature.As a result, new forms of bio-hybrid societies and interactions emerge [46].In short, the design process is no longer about an anthropocentric 3 biology-push or technology-pull, but about the possibilities inherent in material agency 4 .In other words and as Menges put it, 'through computation material no longer needs to be conceived as a passive receptor of predefined form as in established approaches, but instead can be rethought and explored as an active participant in design' [34].This new interaction between technology and biology can push bioinspired disciplines into new territory. 2As Menges and Wortmann put it regarding the collaboration between bamboo culms (and their properties) and robots 'The design/ builder agents learn, in a simulated environment, to manipulate the radius of elastically bent bamboo culms with their weight, movement and momentum to achieve a desired shape while climbing on unstable and only partially observable structures' [33]. 3To avoid possible misinterpretations, I am not arguing here that the human being should play no role at all in the design process.Nor do I support the so-called 'uncritical posthumanism' , according to which robots can be considered as quasi-persons [47].Instead, to quote the British architect Neil Leach, I argue that the designer should not be seen 'as the genius creator who imposes form on the world in a top-down process, and the primary role of the structural engineer is to make possible the fabrication of the designs of the master architect, as close as possible to his or her initial poetic expression' .Rather, the designer 'can be seen more as the controllers of processes, who facilitate the emergence of bottom-up form-finding processes that generate structural formations' [48].This change of perspective would open the way for a more comprehensive analysis of the changing role and image of scientists over time.Furthermore-and I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out to me-there are several activities that are humancentered and cannot be replaced by robots: Creativity, abstraction, know-how, tacit knowledge, to name a few, are essential features of the design process and imply the absolute necessity of human contribution.
Last, the encounter between the technological language of human-programmed robots and the intrinsic code of biological matter enriches our understanding of the relationship between humans, technology, and nature.It enables the emergence of a shared and organic language that bridges the gap between the biological and the technological, promoting harmonious coexistence and collaboration.Designers and roboticists act as translators between natural and technological forms, moving beyond anthropocentrism to come up with possible sustainable solutions.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.A flexible mobile robotic system enables the climbing and assembly of bamboo structures by accommodating a wide range of natural material properties.Credits: Reproduced with permission from [35].© Copyright 2022.Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA).