Recently I’ve been thinking about how Faber’s ideas have evolved thematically from Bionicle to Biovival. Faber clearly has something he wants to say about environmentalism using a world similar to the one he developed for Bionicle, and it has made me think about what themes are at the core of Bionicle and how Faber could be furthering them using the Biovival premise.
I made this comment a month ago on a different topic while thinking along the same lines:
What I’ve realized is that Bionicle has always been a story about survival. In the first three years of the franchise, the enemies weren’t characters, the enemy was the environment. It is a misconception that the Infected Rahi, the Bohrok and the Rahkshi are bad villains because they are simple hive minds; this would be true if they were intended to be characters, which they are not. Rather, they are an extension of the environment. The Rahi were beasts to be tamed, the Bohrok were infectious pests to be contained, and the Rahkshi were literal forces of nature. Even Makuta was likewise more of a force of nature than a character with specific motivations until Mask of Light. The two Metru years also had environmental villains; the Morbuzakh and Visorak were both invasive species.
Bionicle is about Man vs Nature, and is metaphorically about the survival element of Man vs Self because of the GSR’s creation as a metaphor for Faber taking medicine. Metaphorically, the Rahi were cells to be healed, the Bohrok were biological antibodies, the Makuta was a cancer and his Rahkshi were diseases which evaded destruction because the antibodies were not free to stop them.
Survival stories are stories about Man vs Nature, but Biovival appears to be about Man synthesized with machine learning to reconnect with- and ultimately synthesize just as well with nature. This is more interesting to me than a fight between the Toa and the bad guys of the year, and I think it’s a fitting struggle to coincide with Bionicle’s core themes of mystery and discovery. I hope this post isn’t too rambling to be followed.
Edit: This concept has a name: Biophilia
From Wikipedia:
The biophilia hypothesis (also called BET) suggests that humans possess an innate tendency to seek connections with nature and other forms of life.[1] Edward O. Wilson introduced and popularized the hypothesis in his book, Biophilia (1984).[2] He defines biophilia as “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life”.[3]
“Biophilia” is “love of life or living systems.” The term was first used by Erich Fromm to describe a psychological orientation of being attracted to all that is alive and vital. Biophilia describes “the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life.” He proposed the possibility that the deep affiliations humans have with other life forms and nature as a whole are rooted in our biology…
… American philosopher Francis Sanzaro has put forth the claim that because of advances in technological connectivity, especially the internet of things (IOT), our world is becoming increasingly driven by the biophilia hypothesis, namely, the desire to connect to forms of life.[22] Sanzaro applies Wilson’s theories to trends in artificial intelligence and psychoanalysis and argues that technology is not an antithesis to nature, but simply another form of seeking intimacy with nature.