Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 220-237

Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a
Synergy-of-Synergies

John Wood
Emeritus Professor of Design,

Goldsmiths, University of London, London SE14 6NW

Abstract

The paper argues that, in order to curb the current acceleration of species loss-
es, a massive systemic change is needed. However, we are unlikely to achieve
this with current methods. Paradigm change includes the need to rethink the
prevailing ‘realities’ and governances upon which the current paradigm depends.
As designers are expressly trained to ‘think creatively’ this paper argues that
their methods might usefully augment those used by scientists and politicians.
However, as these design methodologies evolved as part of the old paradigm they,
too, need to be re-designed. The paper explores some research into ‘metadesign’
- a non-hierarchical, self-organizing framework for practice that helps designers
to re-design their own mission and working vernacular, when required. In work
that began in 2002, instead of seeing design as the process of creating products
and services, we sought to cultivate ‘synergy’ at many levels. However, syner-
gies tend to operate outside familiar boundaries of language and custom, which
means that metadesigners must develop a metadiscourse, with which to explore
each new predicament. This process encourages the radical ‘relanguaging’ of pur-
poses, roles and self-identities. Although, in the hierarchical sense, this makes
these tasks ‘unmanageable’, politicians can facilitate local change by encouraging
citizens to cultivate a ‘diversity-of-diversities’. This would act as an attractor
to hitherto unforeseen orders, entities and configurations. It would offer an in-
teroperable framework, within which communities could self-orchestrate a more
complex, and emergent, ‘synergy-of-synergies’.
Keywords Biomimicry, Biodiversity, Co-sustainment, Creativity, Ecomimicry,
Languaging, Metadesign, Paradigm, Sympoiesis

1 The 6th Great Extinction

‘Economies of scale’ is a term that emerged from many imperialistic enterprises
over the last five or ten thousand years. While it probably started with the in-
vention of agriculture, humans later applied it to the building of heavy structures
and the management of large bureaucracies and manufacturing plants. But the
discoveries that led to these achievements engendered a presumptuous mode of
formalism that migrated to many other disciplines, including engineering, educa-
tion, business and economics[1]. While it has facilitated rapid population growth
and made many lifestyles more comfortable, it has also led to environmental pol-
lution, habitat destruction and biodiversity contraction. Hence, while politicians



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 221

compete with one another to squeeze yet more ‘efficiency’ and ‘productivity’ out
of a damaging and dysfunctional economic system, the rate of species extinctions
is rising. Some distinguished scientists, such as E.O. Wilson, warn that, over the
next few decades, this could rise to 10,000 times the ‘background’ rates. Although
an event of this magnitude would probably be fatal for human beings, it would not
be without precedent. Richard Leakey’s term ‘6th Extinction’(Leakey & Lewin,
1996) gives a 600 million year context to what is happening now. If these experts
are right, our offspring could witness a halving of the number of living species by
2100, thus putting the survival of Homo Sapiens in grave doubt. This should not
be surprising. From this perspective, systems of biodiversity seem less manage-
able, useful or attractive than monocultures. This approach has made a global
force majeure more likely, probably in the form of violent climatic changes and
agricultural failures. Known remedies are likely to be too weak or inapplicable
because they reflect, and uphold, the paradigm that caused the malady. In short,
whereas Nature is a system that operates on an ‘ecologies-of-scale’ basis, we have
sought to manage it using an ‘economies-of-scale’ approach.

2 Dysfunctional Governance

In order to address these problems, a more systemic and ecomimetic model is
required. As systemic changes would need to be self-inclusively regulated, at
virtually every level, this calls for a more joined-up, self-reflexive and innovative
approach. In other words, we need to introduce a second-order cybernetic sys-
tem[2] in place of the, largely first-order, system that is in place. Rather than
following existing approaches, our ‘metadesign’ methodology is intended to help
us understand how to adopt an ‘ecology-of-scale’ approach[3-4]. Most human
societies are accustomed to a top-down system of government in which the man-
agement of major crises are seen, primarily, as the duty of politicians, scientists
and civil servants. In the 1990’s, concerned by the apparent inability of NGOs to
influence radical changes in behaviour, Donella Meadows (1997) found that the
most familiar measures were the least effective. This is probably because those
most commonly used were bureaucratic (i.e. targets, subsidies, taxes, legislation)
and, therefore, the least direct. Again, the formalism implicit in these processes
can be traced back to Aristotelean and Pythagorean logic[1]. While many re-
gard these as axioms of truth, their dependability is largely epistemological. By
contrast, living systems are less predictable because they are a great deal more
complex and distributed. Even the setting, and attaining, of targets can be a
dispiriting process, especially when they are politically ambitious or controver-
sial. If they are set lower than what is required, they may not easily be reached
within the agreed timescale. Moreover, when targets are missed (this is not un-
common), the morale of the parties involved may be reduced, thus creating a



222 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

positive feedback loop that can trigger, or amplify, a shared sense of futility in
the mission. In seeking to think beyond this kind of sub-optimal system Meadows
looked for what she called the ‘levers of change’[5]. She noted that it is impor-
tant to identify, and to reframe, the agreed purpose of a given paradigm in order
to change it. This lesson has yet to be adequately acknowledged and applied by
governments, who persist in applying a targets-based approach. However, in 2010
the Nagoya World Biodiversity Summit sought to move beyond the customary
agenda of deepening scientific knowledge and raising public awareness. It also
agreed to assign large regions of land and the sea to act as regions of wilder-
ness, in order to give endangered species a chance to recover. Unfortunately, it
soon became clear that the plan would fail[6] because the natural rate of species
replenishment in the wild is too low to reverse the current rate of losses.

3 The Role of Science

It seems unlikely that applying current, hierarchical, top-down remedies for bio-
diversity losses will be effective within the timescale we have. Instead, we might
start by differentiating between, then merging, the functions of scientists, politi-
cians and designers, as their respective professions reflect complementary ap-
proaches. From the designer’s perspective, for example, governments tend to
deal with major problems by listening to ‘scientific’ advice, then trading expe-
diencies in a way that maintains the political status quo. Whereas designers
are trained to deliver desirable, pragmatic solutions within a short timescale,
scientists are trained to regard evidence-based knowledge and reasoning as vital
prerequisites to prudent practice. Dr. Brundtland, former Director-General of
the World Health Organization famously likened the problem of biodiversity to
a major fire: “The Library of Life is burning and we do not even know the titles
of the books”[7]. Perhaps it is because I am more of a designer than a scientist I
find this to be a peculiar analogy. If I am watching the library burn, my instinct
is to put out the flames, not to lament my lack of knowledge. However, a scientist
would probably argue that finding sensible remedies cannot work unless we can
differentiate between species that look identical, yet are at very different levels
of risk. More than three centuries after his birth, Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778)
is still highly praised for simplifying the elaborate nomenclature that previous
scholars used to differentiate between species. He is also celebrated for his clear
taxonomy of classification. Nonetheless, while his efforts may have made it easier
to document all life on Earth, the task has proved much too big to accomplish.
Recent studies estimate that 86% of all land species and 91% of all sea species
are unclassified or undiscovered[8].



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 223

4 Can Scientists Work More Closely With Designers?

Much of the problem lies not with science, but with the way that scientific knowl-
edge tends to be managed. In the fishing industry, for example, just as politicians
may be tempted to exaggerate figures when setting catch quotas, so fisheries are
equally tempted to exceed these quotas. This led to the scandalous process of
‘discards’, trawled fish that exceed the official quotas[9]. With all due respect to
scientists, we cannot wait for ‘robust data’, evidence-based reasoning, or so-called
‘rigorous’ analysis of the problem in order to address it. In other words, we can-
not expect to name and classify all of the relevant species. Therefore, while we
know that a ban on bottom trawlers would probably save some species of marine
life, it is difficult to know which ones. On the other hand, it is enough to know
that some ‘fish fingers’ (or ‘fish sticks’) may contain a proportion of unnamed
and/or unknown species. This is closer to design practices, in which designer-
s often have to make formative decisions before there is clear, evidence-based
knowledge. Moreover, it would be politically difficult to do so, unless alternative
technologies and business models can be offered. This is where design thinking is
useful, especially if it can be brought into synergy with the gathering of scientific
truths, and the making of political decisions. These hybrid systems of governance
would need to embrace what I have called ‘auspicious reasoning’[1], which is con-
tingent and outcome-focused, rather than knowledge-based, or truth-focused. A
well-known example of ‘inauspicious reasoning’ is the ‘tragedy of the common-
s’[10], which reminds us that humans often choose actions with selfish and, or,
short-term gratification, rather than settling for small, immediate reductions in
well-being that will ensure greater long-term safety, or abundance, for all.

5 The Importance of Synergy

Since Darwin, the life sciences have offered a worldview in which living systems
(appear to) defy entropy and create emergent forms of abundance. Unfortunate-
ly, the dominant paradigms of governance appear to reflect a less optimistic view
that emerged from physics, inspired by the exploitative logic of mining. Both tra-
ditions depict the world as a materials and energy system that is ‘running out’,
or ‘running down’. This unhelpful mindset can also be found in school curricula,
and in the non-ecological terms used by most environmentalists (e.g. in the no-
tions of ‘resources’, ‘entropy’ and ‘sustainability’). There are very few ‘resources’
that are beneficial when consumed by themselves. Indeed, Peter Corning claims
that synergy is the cause behind the evolution of complexity in living systems[11].
Buckminster Fuller was probably the first person to show that, by designing for
synergy, rather than for better products or services, designers would achieve more
with less. He defines it as “...the behaviour of whole systems unpredicted by the
separately observed behaviours of their parts taken separately”[12]. In a simple



224 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

example, combining nickel, iron and manganese to makes stainless steel, which
is up to 35% stronger than any of its constituents. ‘Synergy’ also became a key
term within our metadesign research. This is partly because it applies equally to
systems, whether they are seen as animate, or inanimate. But, despite its invalu-
able benefits, the task of seeking, harvesting and harnessing synergies may raise
complex epistemological, technological, or managerial difficulties. This is proba-
bly because it appears in such a diverse and, often, elusive forms. For example,
spontaneous humour, or a spiritually uplifting experience, are no less synergistic
than the combinatorial benefits of stainless steel. In practice, many are hard to
disentangle from the processes with which one thinks, experiences, shares and
acts.

Fig.1 Laufrad Campa Vento bicycle
wheel

Fig.2 Millstone

6 Creating Synergies-of-Synergies

The bicycle is said to be the most energy-efficient mode of transport on the planet.
We can learn a great deal from how its vast array of subtle alignments (i.e. a
‘synergy-of-synergies’) is configured. As it is easier to analyse some of its simpler
synergies, we will use these as a basis from which to reflect on more complex
features. Fig.1 shows a modern design whose metallurgical synergies combine
with synergies of form. The use of stainless steel (see previous paragraph) for
making wheel spokes ensures that they are considerably lighter than a more solid
design. This is because stainless steel is far stronger when under tension, than
in compression. These, and a totality of other synergies, make it capable of
supporting a load that is up to seven hundred times its own weight. As this
example may sound like the traditional ‘economies-of-scale’ logic, how might we



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 225

retrieve ‘ecologies-of-scale’? Here, we should not forget that, like any ecosystem
(or ‘paradigm’) the bicycle is part of a much larger system that includes, in this
case, a suitable cyclist, a transport culture and a network of flat roads.

7 Creating Synergies-of-Synergies

Let us look at a more qualitative mode of synergy. For example, when brought
together in the appropriate way, the poisons, chlorine and sodium, become nu-
tritionally useful and palatable in the form of salt. Unfortunately, simple, ‘free-
standing’ synergies are less common than complex, messy ones, because most
synergies have more than one property (e.g. most stainless steels last far longer
than ordinary steels because they do not rust). Hence, we probably fail to notice
new synergies[13] even though they may be abundant and ubiquitous. In many
cases they operate outside what can easily be described. This underlines the
subjective nature of synergy, and its dependence on our creative ability to imag-
ine conditions beyond the current affordances of ones language. This is similar
to the challenge of supporting hitherto unnoticed, unnamed or untaxonomised
species. However, it also suggests that we can adapt to the universe in a myriad
of unforeseen ways. How might we set about creating spiritual states, or even
miracles[14]? The first step is almost an act of faith, because observation is an
emotional, as well as a rational faculty. This can begin with the logical assertion
that ‘unthinkable’ things may be attainable, once we begin to notice them. After
all, until quite recently, ships made of iron, flying machines, and quantum logic
were all ‘unthinkable’ or ‘impossible’.

8 Learning from Synergistic Complexity

For example, by exploring synergies, a good cook can combine ordinary, local,
inexpensive cooking ingredients and turn them into an extraordinary experience
for her, or his, guests. This example includes very many types of synergy - from
the way heat melts cheese, or butter (i.e. simple physics) to the more complex
nutritional benefits of combining, say, broccoli and sprouts[15]. The way that
people co-create a unique, indefinable atmosphere together is even more com-
plex and intangible. One thing we can learn from food synergies is the way that
complementary flavours work. Some molecular gastronomists predict that any
two foods with a common (molecular) ingredient will taste good when combined.
Also, some apparently incompatible substances, such as oil and water can be
made to mix when an emulsifier is added. This works if the emulsifier’s molecu-
lar chain has a water-compatible atom at one end and an oil-compatible atom at
the other. These lessons from food technology can be applied, via metaphors, to
other systems. For example, ‘immiscible’ ingredients, such as oil and water, can
be combined when an emulsifier is added. The same principle could be applied



226 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

to teams containing antagonistic members. Hence, differences might be resolved
(‘emulsified’) via a third party who seems benign to each of the antagonists.
Ecosystems can be used as the model for a new order of innovation. For one
reason, their complexity and interdependency that makes them resilient within
a community context. We know, for example, that ‘keystone species’ are criti-
cal to the survival of other species, so we might set about designing ‘keystone
synergies’ that would engender, and sustain, subordinate synergies within a giv-
en environment or context(see Fig.2). Another way to explain this process is by
thinking of it as a singular act that behaves as a ‘manifold innovation’ that brings
many benefits to many stakeholders. A good historical example is the millstone,
which attracted many subsequent social, cultural, nutritional and technological
synergies.

9 Continuously Re-Languaging Nature

While we might assume, hypothetically speaking, that ecological diversity can
be enhanced, it may be hard to see how this can be achieved. This is partly
because the ‘language’ we use to enframe nature is always less than adequate to
the situation. Systems theory helped us to recognise the important interdepen-
dencies between meanings and actions in ecosystems. However, this relationship
embodies a paradox. Although language shapes our ‘realities’ and guides our
actions[16-17], Nature is ineffable and emergent, and will therefore defy clear
and enduring definition[18]. Hence, while new ideas may only become popularly
understood when suitable terminology is found, this may have a limited era of
usefulness. Sometimes, seemingly simple keywords prove too difficult, or unpopu-
lar, to be accepted. For example, the rather narrow term ‘ecological footprint’[19]
soon gave way to the (even narrower) idea of ‘carbon footprint’[19], thus giving
the false impression that the complex phenomena that cause climate change can
be curbed by simple economic transactions that ‘offset’ carbon emissions, or by
geoengineering solutions that aim to ‘remove’ it from the environment. Arguably,
in living systems, the task of creating, modulating and switching meanings cannot
be managed successfully in a top-down, external, or hierarchical way, especially
when the hierarchy grows and becomes many-layered. This follows from Ross
Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, which warns of the dangers of arbitrarily re-
ducing the number of variables within subsystems[20]. Maturana and Varela offer
a useful ecomimetic account of living systems, by explaining that they balance
the ‘meaning’ of their internal and their external identities[21].

10 Re-languaging Sustainability

The above description suggests that the survival of a given species is, at least,
explicable within systemic terms that transcend ethics. No organism deserves



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 227

longevity because of an a priori moral right or because it enjoys a privileged sta-
tus. This is because there a seldom a simple, intuitive logic of cause-and-effect,
or a fixed hierarchy of relations. Here, it is the ambiguity of the popular term
‘sustainable’[22] that has rendered it unhelpful. The verb ‘to sustain’ denotes
a continuation over time, but it may also carry the non-temporal meaning of
something ‘holding together’. Using the verb ‘to sustain’ transitively and tempo-
rally (e.g. ‘B’ sustains the continued existence of ‘A’) would clarify the direction
of causation. However, merely saying that something is ‘sustainable’ does not
make clear who ‘sustains’ what. In any case, reciprocal (2-way) relationships
are prevalent in ecosystems, even though this may seem counterintuitive. The
death of a predator species, for example, may seem to ‘cause’ the death of its
prey. I therefore use the term ‘co-sustainment’ instead of ‘sustainability’, as it
acknowledges the mutual dependency of all living systems[23]. Evolution adjusts
relationships all the time, which means that everything is always changing. In
order for a species to endure - i.e. to remain a viable part of the whole - it
must always be ready to adapt to its changing habitat. This means adjusting
our actions and identities, rather than trying to re-design Nature in accordance
with our expectations. Inviting designers to work at this level would also mean
re-designing the design paradigm that is part of the problem.

11 Changing the Change

In practical terms, we have found it helpful to change other key terms that were
being applied in what we saw as a dubious, or unhelpful way. For example, we
stopped using certain terms (e.g. ‘creativity’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘biomimicry’)
and designed more useful alternatives (i.e. ‘sympoiesis’, ‘co-sustainment’ and
‘ecomimicry’). The idea of ‘languaging’ change is not only a theory about the
seamlessness of interplay between action and thought. It is, also, a practical way
for design teams to co-create their ‘survival’ as whole, living systems. However,
this active, radical, consensual reframing of meaning means that, of necessity,
the participant’s perceived reality will also change (we are aware that this also
applies to us, as ‘metadesigners’). We have, therefore, found it useful to follow
Maturana and Varela’s practice of using the word ‘language’ as a verb. As this
change would be both shared and self-reflexive, our new, shared self-identity
cannot be separated from our behavioural culture. This pluralisation of identity,
led us to coin the term ‘sympoiesis’[24], based on the idea of ‘autopoiesis’[25], in
which living systems ‘create themselves’. This is also reminiscent of Freud’s early
notion of ‘polymorphous perversity’[26], which describes how an infant steers its
habits and identities by making situated choices based on its personal experience
of gratification or displeasure. These habits may later be guided by the values and
responses of the society, which are also mediated by the framework of language



228 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

within which the infant will, in theory, be free to co-create, as a member of that
society. It may also be that there insufficient creative optimism, or opportunism,
within the metadesign team. This also has useful implications for the future
of democracy. Indeed, the work of Donella Meadows (1997) implies that the
collective imagination is more powerful than the counting of individual votes.

12 How Can We Do It Better?

Unless we decide to see our fate as a largely self-inflicted (and well-deserved)
inevitability, we need some decisive action that will have the requisite effect on
species decline. I have been arguing for many years that design professionals
might be a helpful complement to the range of experts currently consulted by
the most influential government agencies and corporations. This would mean
commissioning designers to be servants of humanity, rather than working for the
profit of a few. Unfortunately, most are trained to be specialist mercenaries who
apply their ‘creative’ visual intelligence to service the insatiable demands of a
consumer-led economy. While designers have shown themselves to be indispensi-
ble to the commercial system, they are less influential for their thinking. Western
thought has tended to value logic and truth so many of the major professions are
educated within a learning culture that tends to see knowledge as a set of truth-
claims, backed-up by evidence. Designers are different because they are trained
to immerse themselves in the pleasurable immediacy of forms and images. But
they also think in terms of anticipatory affordances (i.e. the optimistically hy-
pothetical, the creatively provisional and the contingently possible). These not
only include skills cultivated in schools and universities, but they also reflect a
set of capabilities that evolved over the last million years, or so[27]. At the end of
the 1960s, the scientist, Herbert Simon and the designer Victor Papanek[28] both
made the claim that everyone is a designer. In Simon’s version, we ‘design’ when-
ever we create a particular course of action that is likely to change an existing
situation into a preferred one[29]. More recently, the sociologist, Zigmunt Bau-
man pushed the idea further by arguing that the similarity between design and
management has existed since the late 1880s, when governments invited designers
and managers to bring science and technology into everyday life[30]. Recently,
Tim Brown[31] has popularised what Herbert Simon[29] called ‘design thinking’,
and what Nigel Cross called ‘designerly ways of knowing’[32]. Before this, many
non-designers had not fully appreciated the distinctiveness of these approaches.

13 Design for Survival

According to John Thackara (2005) the decisions we take at the design stage are
the ‘cause’ of 80% of the environmental impact of the products. Yet, historically,
although designers are encouraged to explore alternative futures in a creative



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 229

way, their status, as a ‘minor’, or relatively junior, profession has given them few
opportunities to work at a more strategic level. This may help to explain why
we are stuck in a paradigm of bad habits that perpetuates confused thinking. To
be able to tackle highly complex problems, such as biodiversity losses, designers
would need to rethink their traditional role as catalysts of the consumer society.
Rather than working as specialists, they would need to cultivate a more self-
reflexive and comprehensive approach that enables them to intervene at many
simultaneous points within a whole system. They might need to learn how to
create synergies for all, rather than new products and services. The pivotal role
of designers within the fashion industry highlights this, in quite an ironic way.
In Europe, the habits of the fashion industry cause around 10% of all the waste
produced, yet the role assigned to designers makes them seem more like the
problem than the solution. This is a systemic problem that cannot be blamed on
one particular group or method. As Mathilda Tham, the trends forecaster, put
it, ‘fashion thrives on innovation but resists change’[33]. In other words, although
fashion designers may be capable of re-thinking long-term business futures, they
are trained to ignore these possibilities, and to focus onto next season’s style-
futures. But, if designers were trained to envision long-term business futures,
they would be able to deliver waste-free rewards for corporations. The ‘cradle-
to-cradle’ movement is an excellent example of this approach. By creating an
adaptive, circular economy, rather than one that looks for unlimited innovation
and growth, it will be possible to design complex synergies of combination, rather
than offering short-life products that cost additional money for their dispose.

Fig.3 Some of the co-sustaining paradigms that maintain the status quo.



230 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

14 Re-Designing Paradigms

What is stopping the implementation of systems that will produce longer-term
outcomes? To a great extent, the obstacles to change are caused by the poor
economic thinking behind technological development. If designers are not paid
to look beyond their short-term cycle of design, production and re-design they
cannot take full responsibility for what happens in the longer-term. One way to
reconcile design thinking with ecological thinking is to invent a systemic discourse
within which complex systems are seen as ‘paradigms’[34], because they resemble
ecosystems. They also contain both animate, and inanimate agencies, similar to
James Lovelock’s Gaia theory[35]. And these paradigms sustain themselves by
attracting new elements that serve to support them. While designers tend to be
taught how to (re)design existing products, we also need more radical solutions
at the paradigmatic level. For example, although architects are trained to come
up with a variety of iterations to high-rise offices, few are able to re-think the
underlying paradigm of concrete, steel and glass, even though these materials
have an inordinately large carbon footprint. The high-rise office is ubiquitous to
London, New York or Beijing. Like all paradigms, it resists change because it
is sustained by an interconnected array of subsidiary systems (also paradigms,
or quasi-species), such as insurance protocols, commercial habits, technological
habits, economic assumptions - each of which appears to depend on it for their
own survival[36].

15 Design for Biodiversity

In order to encourage designers to achieve better levels of ‘co-sustainment’, we
would need to develop a more ‘ecomimetic’ approach[37]. Ecomimicry is signifi-
cantly different from what is known as ‘biomimicry’[38]. Although ‘biomimicry’
was defined within an admirably broad philosophy, the way that designers tend
to apply it seems disappointingly narrow. Perhaps this reflects the prevailing
business mindset, in which projects are seldom seen as part of a circular[39], or
long-term economic vision. Even today, it is hard to find examples of biomimet-
ic innovation that do much more than behave as discrete technological ‘fixes’,
gadgets or products. Instead of seeing the designer’s role as the fixer of links in
a chain of transactions, ‘ecomimetic designers’ would be expected to design the
“conditions” that support interdependencies within whole systems. This is not
a simple, or trivial shift. For example, the massive complexity and ineffability
of these interdependencies mean that we can no longer expect to work predic-
tively, as we might have done with, say, product design. Many other aspects of
design, as we know it, will also need to change, therefore we will refer to the
new approach as metadesign. One of the radical changes we need to make is to
re-purpose what we understand as ‘creativity’ and acquire a wiser understanding



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 231

of relations, rather than separate ‘things’.

16 Re-inventing Creativity

Integrating hitherto disconnected methodologies is useful, but it is not enough.
We also need to modify the assumptions that motivate designers, especially where
‘creativity’ is concerned. This means analysing and, where necessary, challenging
the received assumptions behind this term. In the last decade or two, we have
seen particular models of creativity as tools for regenerating urban communities
[40], for stimulating economic growth, or for transforming businesses to make the
economy more ‘efficient’[41]. Here, ‘creatives’, such as designers, have come to
be seen as part of a dependable toolbox that can bring success to prestigious real
estate deals, national re-branding exercises, or other tourist attractions, such as
the hosting of an Olympic Games events. How might we think of ‘creativity’
if the main aim is to generate wellbeing and prosperity by achieving optimum
biodiversity? I believe we must develop creativity’s capacity to help us to ‘adapt’
better to our changing habitat. This may include applying it, less to the defeat of
existing, or rival, plans but to look for new ‘synergies’ that will deliver additional
benefits that emerge from combining existing things.

17 The Problem of ‘Creative Genius’

One of the problems with the modern idea of ‘creativity’ is that it became part of
the culture of competitive advantage, rather than a way to adapt to new situation-
s. Often, one finds ecological terminology applied, shamelessly, to an economic
context whose autonomy is seldom framed within the bigger picture. And it is
increasingly associated with destructive terms, such as ‘disruptive innovation’, or
‘disruptive technologies’. These tendencies remind one of the aggressive, pitiless
language of Francis Bacon, whose crude scientific methodologies are perpetuated
in some global corporations, whose products continue to threaten the survival of
certain key species. The same, swaggering, solipsistic stance can also be noted
from books on creativity and innovation, such as ‘Ignore Everybody’ or ‘Relent-
less Innovation’. Redefining creativity is not a simple step. The destructive and
egoistic models that we inherited from the Romantics remain part of the popular
culture. After the Enlightenment it came to valorize individual power, original-
ity, and - to be blunt - arrogance. David Hume (1711-1776) and others, such
as Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), strongly admired the notion of ‘genius’ as
someone who is so extraordinarily self-styled and unfathomable that he would
struggle to adapt to the ‘normal’ world around him. This also echoes Nietzsche’s
idea of ‘Der Übermensch’, which developed in the 1880’s. This theory asserted
that Homo Sapiens has the potential to create a New Order, provided there is a
sufficient will to power, and a readiness to reject societal ideals and moral codes.



232 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

In the 20th century, inspired by psychoanalysis and by concepts such as ‘positive
self-regard’, ‘presentation of self’, and ‘self-actualisation’ creativity came to be
associated with the right to personal self-expression.

18 Unreasonable Men

In a sense, then, the modern sense of the word ‘creativity’ may mean a cynical, or
arrogant refusal to adapt to anything. Perhaps this is what the architect, Frank
Gehry, meant when he said, in 2005, “I don’t do context”. Today, the invitation
to ‘be unreasonable’, or to ‘think different’ (presumably, a fusion of ‘be different’
and ‘think differently’) has become familiar to today’s consumers. Indeed, the
Apple corporation have used it many times to advertise their computers. Howev-
er, sustaining and enhancing biodiversity will require us to reflect more deeply on
the shareable and distributed nature of creativity and how can help us adapt to
our habitat. Our stridently humanistic idea of creative may be traced back sev-
eral thousand years to Horace, who inspired Kant’s famous phrase ‘dare to know’
(1784). And, while it had encouraged a long development of careful reason and
inquiry, this was not what we would understand as ‘creativity’, as we understand
it today. By the 17th century the idea of ‘daring to know’ had inspired John
Locke’s radical insight (1689) that “the mind can furnish the understanding with
ideas”. While the notion of ‘creative thinking’ may now be commonplace for ag-
nostics in the 21st century, it had remained virtually unthinkable to philosophers
before Hume and Locke. The idea that an individual can choose to think what
s/he wants to, later acquired a powerful framework of thinking, with Coleridge’s
term ‘self-consciousness’, as celebrated by a series of narcissistic ‘genius’ figures
who dominated the post-romantic era in art, literature and music.

19 Can We Find Creativity in Nature?

In 1877, ten years before the first Sherlock Holmes publications made it popular,
Charles Peirce announced his idea of ‘abductive reasoning’. This turned deduc-
tive argumentation on its head, by enabling thinkers to begin the process with
what might, hitherto, have seemed like a conclusion. While we may see this type
of logic as a characteristically human, or even modern, mode of thought, Gregory
Bateson has suggested that abductive reasoning is part the natural order: “all
thought would be totally impossible in a universe in which abduction was not
expectable......”[42]. He believed that evolution is responsible for the parallels
between the way we think, and the way Nature works. Arthur Koestler’s ‘biso-
ciation’ method is interesting in this respect, as it is designed to elicit a new
idea when two things are combined[43]. This resembles sexual reproduction in
that different ‘parent’ ideas are brought together to create a new hybrid outcome.
When the two ideas (or creatures) creatures, ‘A’ and ‘B’, are combined - we may



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 233

find that we also have a third idea - ‘C’. Abductive reasoning is a way to ‘reverse
engineer’ evolutionary logic. Instead of taking the 2 parents and seeing what
type of child we will get, we start with the child (‘C’) and look for an ‘A’ and
a ‘B’ that might have been its parents. One lesson we can learn from evolution
is that creativity is only important when it works to produce new opportunities.
And one reason why the Romantic era created so much interest and excitement
is because it was less concerned with the strict languages of scientific ‘truth’ and
more to do with enriching the semantic discourse that may, subsequently, become
applicable to science. However, unlike scientific ‘truths’, artistic propositions are
usually hard to fathom, without reflecting upon their aesthetic status.

20 The Role of Aesthetics

It will be important to harness aesthetic criteria when changing the paradigm,
because aesthetics acts as an interface between thoughts and actions. Aesthetic
discourse can change consensus because we share and modify our perceptions
when we discuss personal tastes. Arguably, beauty tells us what is good, or,
rather, what used to be good. Aesthetics is not only a philosophical discourse, it
is also a multi-dimensional field of awareness, so it cannot be quantified using a
small number of dimensions. Claims to beauty exist as combinations of elements,
or as patterns of sensory awareness, that are deemed to work together. The
fact that we have fads in food tastes, or fashions in clothing, is evidence that
aesthetic judgements are seldom fixed by a rigid biological ‘need’, or aesthetic
code. However, it seems likely that certain predilections and habits are strongly
‘wired’ into the human body, especially when they remind it of tastes, flavours,
or colours that have proved beneficial to us over many hundreds, or thousands,
of years. This is useful to designers (and to artists), because creating new tastes
and aesthetic forms will change appetites & habits. A good example of this is
the pleasure that we take when they see varieties of the Rosaceae (rose) plant
family. Humans have enjoyed products of the rose family for many thousands
of years. They have give us many varieties of nutritious fruits, such as apples,
apricots, plums, cherries, peaches, pears, raspberries, and strawberries. During
this time we have made them bigger and sweeter, thus creating a strong level of
co-sustainment between people and the plants themselves. In my opinion it is
not a meaningless coincidence that the largest and most successful brand in the
world is an ‘Apple’.

21 Re-languaging New Realities

In previous papers I have argued that designers have, traditionally, overlooked
the importance of language in ‘design thinking’. This is not meant to imply that
designers should try to think in a more ‘critical’ way, but that they could be more



234 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

creative with the terms that we use to describe things, experiences, values and
ideas. How many colours are there in a rainbow? Even though science tells us
that it contains countless wavelengths of light, most people answer with a small
number (usually 7) they learned at school. But how does this answer affect our
perceptions? Our reality is lived out in metaphors, adjectives, images and cate-
gories. These, in turn, shape our beliefs, actions and assumptions. If one language
has more words for flavours, and for colours, than another, it seems likely that
the speaker of this language will have a bigger horizon of experience. The pioneer
eco-semiotician, Jakob von Uexküll (1864-1944), used the term ‘Umwelt’ to de-
scribe the phenomenological ‘reality’ of different creatures. This is an important
idea, because no two creatures experience the world in quite the same way. Even
though symbiotic relationships may develop within the affordances of an existing
language system (i.e. what Maturana & Varela call ‘structural coupling’) there
may be a very tenuous overlap between the two sides of the ‘conversation’ For
example, one may be able to see but not to hear, the other may have the oppo-
site capabilities. This suggests that, by augmenting the naming system we have,
we can expand our Umwelt, perhaps in order to re-map vested interests, empa-
thetically, in conjunction with other species. Hypothetically speaking, redefining
the agreed purpose of a paradigm should make it easy to change[5]. However,
social inertial is co-sustained by the language and customs of the old paradigm,
and these tend to mask opportunities, making them seem difficult, unthinkable
or impossible. Crudely speaking, the answer is to create new words that would
afford new concepts and, perhaps, serve to facilitate new ecological paradigms
that enable the Homo Sapiens to survive a little longer.

References

[1] Backwell J. and Wood J. (2009), “Catalysing network consciousness in lead-
erless groups: a metadesign tool”, In Consciousness Reframed 12, Art, Iden-
tity and the Technology of the Transformation, editors Roy Ascott & Luis
Miguel Girão, University of Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 36-41.

[2] Ranulph Glanville. (2004), “The purpose of second-order cybernetics”, Ky-
bernetes, Vol.33, No.9, pp.1379-1386.

[3] Wood J. (2007), “Design for micro-utopias: thinking beyond the possible”,
Ashgate: UK.

[4] Wood J. (2007), “Synergy city, planning for a high density, super-symbiotic
society”, (Editors P. Jones, H. Jones), Landscape and Urban Planning,
Vol.83, No.1, pp.77-83.



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 235

[5] Meadows D. (1999), “Leverage points: places to intervene in a system”, The
Sustainability Institute, http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Leverage Points.pd
f, accessed 14 August, 2009.

[6] Gross M. and Williams N. (2010), “Missed targets”, In Current Biology,
Vol.20, No.12, pp.496-497.

[7] Valiverronen E. and Hellsten I. (2002), “From ‘burning library’ to ‘green
medicine’ the role of metaphors in communicating Biodiversity”, Science
Communication, Vol.24, No.2, pp.229-245.

[8] Mora C., Tittensor D.P., Adl, S., Simpson, A.G.B. and Worm. B. (2011),
“How many species are there on earth and in the ocean?”, PLoS Biol Vol.9,
No.8: e1001127. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127.

[9] Brown P. (2011), Guardian articles, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme
nt/2011/sep/30/uk-cod-collapse-overfishing? accessed 30 September 2011.

[10] Hardin G. (1977), “The tragedy of the commons. In Garrett Hardin and
John Baden (eds.)”, Managing the Commons, W.H. Freeman and Co, San
Francisco.

[11] Corning P. (1983), The Synergism Hypothesis, Institute for the Study of
Complex Systems, Palo Alto.

[12] Fuller, Richard Buckminster. (1969), Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth,
Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale, IL.

[13] Diaconis P. and Mosteller F. (1989), “Methods of studying coincidences”,
Journal of American Statistical Association, Vol.84, pp.853-861 (Cited in
Weisstein, Eric W, Law of truly large numbers from mathworld-a wolfram
web resource).

[14] Harrop, S. (2011), “Living in harmony with nature? Outcomes of the 2010
Nagoya conference of the convention on biological diversity”, in Journal of
Environmental Law, Vol.23, No.1, pp.117-128.

[15] Magee E. (2007), Food Synergy, Unleash Hundreds of Powerful Healing Food
Combinations to Fight Disease and Live Well, Rodale, New York.

[16] Whorf B.L. (1956), Language, thought and reality: Selected Writings of Ben-
jamin Lee Whorf, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

[17] Lakoff G. and Johnson M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By, University of
Chicago: Chicago and London.



236 John Wood:Creativity & Biodiversity: Towards a Synergy-of-Synergies

[18] Wood J. (2011), “Languaging change from within: can we metadesign bio-
diversity?”, In Journal of Science and Innovation, Vol.1, No.3, pp.27-32.

[19] Wackernagel M. and Rees W.E. (1996), Our Ecological Footprint, Reducing
Human Impact on the Earth, Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

[20] Ashby W.R. (1956), Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, London.

[21] Maturana H. and Varela F. (1992), The Tree of Knowledge: Biological Roots
of Understanding, Shambhala: Boston.

[22] Brundtland E. (1987), “Our common future”, Report of the World Com-
mission on Environment and Development, available at: http://www.un-
documents.net/wced-ocf.htm (accessed 18th March 2012).

[23] Wood, J. (2002), “(Un)managing the butterfly: co-sustainment and the
grammar of Self”, In International Review of Sociology: Revue Interna-
tionale de Sociologie, Vol.12, No.2, 2002, p.1.

[24] Wood J. and Nieuwenhuijze O. (2005), “Synergy and sympoiesis in the writ-
ing of joint papers; anticipation with/in imagination”, paper presented at
Seventh International Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems, HEC
Management School, University of Liege, Liège, Belgium, 8-13 August.

[25] Maturana H., Varela F. (1980), “Autopoiesis and cognitionthe realisation of
the living”, In Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Reidel: Boston.

[26] Freud S. (1991), “On sexuality: Three essays on the theory of sexuality and
other works”, edited by Angela Richards, 1991, Penguin,Harmondsworth.

[27] Dilnot, Clive. (2008), “The critical in design (Part One)”, Journal of Writing
in Creative Practice, 1.2 pp. 177-189.

[28] Papanek V. and Fuller, R.B. (1972), Design for the Real World, Thames and
Hudson.

[29] Simon H. (1969), The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edition, MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA.

[30] Bauman Z. (2006), “Design, ethics and humanism, cumulus conference”,
warsaw. Nantes, France 5-17 June 2006.

[31] Brown T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Creates New
Alternatives for Business and Society: How Design Thinking Can Transform
Organizations and Inspire Innovation, Harper Collins, NY.



Advances in Systems Science and Applications (2012) Vol.12 No.3 237

[32] Cross N. (2010), Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer-Verlag: London.

[33] Tham M. and H. Jones. (2008), “Metadesign tools: designing the seeds for
shared processes of change”, 10-12 July, 2008 At the ‘Changing the Change’
Conference, Turin, Italy.

[34] Wood J. (2012), “In the cultivation of research excellence, is rigour
a no-brainer?”, Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 5:1, pp.11-26,
doi:10.1386/jwcp.5.1.11 1.

[35] Lovelock J. (1979), Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University
Press: Oxford.

[36] Kauffman S. (1995), At Home in the Universe, the Search for the Laws of
Self-Organization, Oxford University Press: New York.

[37] Fairclough K, ed. Jones, H. Ecozen . (2005), In Agents of Change: a Decade
of MA Design Futures, Goldsmiths College: London, pp.42.

[38] Benyus J. (1997), Innovation Inspired by Nature: Biomimicry, William Mor-
row and Co.: New York.

[39] McDonough W. and Braungart M. (2002), Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the
Way We Make Things, North Point Press: New York.

[40] Landry, C. (2000), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators,
Earthscan Ltd, UK & USA, ISBN-10:1853836133, ISBN-13:978-1853836138.

[41] Cox G. and Dayan Z. (2005), Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building
on the UK’s Strengths, TSO: Norwich, Chapter 1.

[42] Bateson G. (1980), Mind and Nature: a Necessary Unity, New York: Bantam
Books.

[43] Koestler A. (1967), The Ghost in the Machine, Penguin: London (reprint
1990).

Corresponding Author
John Wood can be contacted at: maxripple@gmail.com