Nice to see these ideas out there.

You forget one of the most significant biomimicries... any counter current system.

I'm not sure if it's correct to call "Constructal Theory" the inverse of biomimicry.

If anyone bothers to follow the links, they will see some criticism of "Constructal Theory" along the lines of mutton dressed as lamb. There is some truth in this, but if it were all so obvious and easily derivable from first principles... why are "we" so "bad" at it?

I think it would be better termed formalised biomimicry.

Natural systems simply "seek" the most "efficient" method of transforming energy or material flow, via evolution within the constraints of other processes. We mimic this now with genetic algorithms.

In some respects you could argue that human engineering is constrained by the necessity to incorporate fiscal considerations. To be clear, money is not a natural system. It's "value" is subject to the whims and desires of the not always rational members of the human species.

Thus, while energy is cheap monetarily, we make foolish long term energy investment decisions.

I think some of this comes about due to the reduction of complex arguments to some kind of dualism.
Perfect- imperfect, efficient - inefficient. But what do these terms mean?