Weinstock’s argument for the integration of natural chemical processes in architecture is founded in a need to better respond to the contemporary built urban condition. Weinstock suggests that the incorporation of qualities possessed by living things such as photosynthesis and metabolic energy generation will allow human ecology to become naturally systematized. Self organization and natural morphologies will support a sustainable built environment and respond better to a progressing change in climate. It would need to be a direct translation from our understanding of micro biology to the macro biological condition of our human ecology. The emergent conditions found in swarms and networks can be utilized for their response to growth and change. Yet, while the symbiotic relationship that Weinstock is in favour of rightly proclaims advancement in responding to the fluid human ecology, I have doubt regarding the full and complete integration of these systems in architecture. The concept generally ignores past typologies and fails to consider or relate to the natural condition of the singularity. Multiplicities demand communication and the functioning of a system of parts, while I believe there is still a place for solace and sanctuary in architecture. The argument for metabolic systems frames a liquid figure and leaves behind the ideology of firmness and setting within the ground. The “”symbiotic relationship” is in fact something of a red herring as one asks “with what?” The idea of nature has become so convoluted through revolution and war, the human environment has redefined the relative autonomy of the environment and it may be too late to fall back on the laurels of a pure biological nature.