Do the Japanese really love nature more than all other people ?

[Gentleman10]

I think what's funny is, even though the Japanese may not care about the greenery, they sure make an effort to keep their cities clean. I think it's very considerate of them to keep their streets and sidewalks clean, so I guess maybe that gives some people of an impression that Japanese people respect their environment more? On the other hand, I did have the experience of going to the beach in Japan, and let me tell you, it wasn't the most pleasant water their...

[undrentide]

-At least I was teached in elementary school that whale is mammal. How do you teach it is a mammal if there is only one kanji for sea animal, how do you teach differences ?

Having one kanji for whale with 魚 radical does not mean they don't teach whale is mammal. Of course pupils are taught at school that whale is mammal, so is dolphine. It can be explained in Japanese as easily as in English or other language.

[gaijinalways]

I also have been disappointed with some areas in Japan. For example, I visited Kamikochi Park in Japan. In the park they restrict entry to a limited number of taxis and tour buses. So, we are hiking along, nice view of the river, and we come around a bend, and there is a nice view of a bus parking lot (conveniently located next to the river)! That and the park decided to build two hotels right next to the river.

So the problem in Japan, is that they seem to do a poor job of balancing access with preserving the natural landscape. The same for many hiking trails, which often use concrete reinforcement rather than more natural materials.

As to numbers at national parks, I don't think the number of Japanese visiting national parks in Japan compares to the number of visitors in the US to national parks. For example, a smaller park in Maine, Acadia National Park, gets close to 7 million visitors a year. I can't imagine most of the national parks in Japan get anywhere close to that number of visitors.

http://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/nps/np.html

This link shows the number of visitors over 50 years (!). Some 390 visitors over 50 years, or about 8 million a year for all the national parks!

[Maciamo]

I also have been disappointed with some areas in Japan. For example, I visited Kamikochi Park in Japan. In the park they restrict entry to a limited number of taxis and tour buses. So, we are hiking along, nice view of the river, and we come around a bend, and there is a nice view of a bus parking lot (conveniently located next to the river)! That and the park decided to build two hotels right next to the river.
So the problem in Japan, is that they seem to do a poor job of balancing access with preserving the natural landscape.

This is also what Alex Kerr explained in "Lost Japan" and "Dogs & Demons". Many temples nationwide have advertising signs (mostly notoriously by Hitachi) just in front of them, which spoils the overall view. Many castles have had lifts/elevators built inside them (e.g. Osaka-jo, Chiba-jo), which kills the historical character. Many forest trails have asphalted paths and steps, which I am sure make it easier for o-baasan to walk, but also spoils the natural atmosphere. If there is something that the Japanese have always done for centuries, it is to try to control and impose their will onto nature. This is obvious in Zen gardens, which are almost a misnommer because a garden is supposed to have a lot of greenery, not just well raked sand and stones... Building concrete hotels or other ugly tourist facilities next to beautiful attractions is certainly a Japanese speciality, which Alex Kerr makes a point in denouncing in both of the above-mentioned books.

[leonmarino]

Before people start blaming and shaming other countries of being "not environmentally friendly" or "not up to modern standards" (if I may be so free to paraphrase some of you posters), may I put it in a bit of perspective?

Japan is one of the cleanest countries I know.. In fact it is the cleanest country I've ever been too. I rarely see any filth lying around in the city, suburbia or countryside. This is in sharp contrast with the situation in Europe. No matter in what desolate piece of land I come, there is always filth left behind by our fellow human beings.

And it is so easy to bad-mouth the Japanese for their concrete riversides and hills, and then compare it with, say, Switzerland.. But Switzerland doesn't have as many earthquakes a year as Japan does now does it? The fear for landslides is very real.

And for god's sake what's with the whale thing!? A whale is a mammel just like a cow or pig many of us love to eat. Japan, being in middle of the sea, whale-hunting had become a very normal thing to do. So what? If you want to put the Japanese in a bad light for "not being educated enough", why don't you start teaching peoples of the evils of eating meat (a cow in Europe and the US receives more subsidy than half of the world population has to live on: $2 a day) (and their excrements cause damage too due to the methan gasses), or talk to the animal lovers who have pets and take "good care" of them by giving them medicines whenever is needed.. Which are tested on other, less fortunate pets!

But to get back to the nature issue: Japan has had a very succesful forestry and timber policy since the 17th century, which succesfully fought a timber scarcity. If it weren't for the Tokugawa rule Japan would have been extinct now. And on another account, Toyota is the most efficient car manufacturer in the world, creating the least waste per car produced and delivering cars with efficient fuel usage too. "Toyotism" is a major contribution to the world and has opened the eyes of many other manufacturers around the world.

Also the recycling policy in Japan is amazing, I don't have to explain you that. I have to admit that I sometimes wish that Japanese products used less packaging, but at least a near 100% is being recycled.

Now I am not saying that Japan is perfect with regards to perserving nature. Sure there a lot a points that can be improved. All I want to say is look at your own country and that situation too: I am ashamed of the attitude of most Dutch people, throwing garbage on the street "or else the cleaners wouldn't have anything to do!" I am also ashamed of our European Union, quartered in Brussels, and which has a monthly plenary meeting in Strasbourg, costing a whopping 300 million dollars a year, not to mention the environmental damage the vehicles are causing.

人のふり見て我がふり直せ。

[sabro]

I see more tour groups and busses up here in these mountains, at Yosemite and at the Grand Canyon than from any other foreign country. Perhaps it is just because the Japanese tourists prefer to go on group tours here, but in California, there seem to be no shortage of Japanese that do seem to love nature.

My mother's family... who are Japanese, seem to have a deep and abiding respect and appreciation for nature. We often went fishing, camping, hiking and backpacking. I spent countless weekends in the mountains, at the beach and in the dessert and slept under the stars in wilderness areas for weeks at a time. I don't know if this reflected a "Japanese" value, but it was a value that my Japanese family passed down to me.

[Maciamo]

I see more tour groups and busses up here in these mountains, at Yosemite and at the Grand Canyon than from any other foreign country. Perhaps it is just because the Japanese tourists prefer to go on group tours here, but in California, there seem to be no shortage of Japanese that do seem to love nature.

You may be right about the Japanese liking bus tours more than average. On the other hand I very rarely see Japanese tourists in the countryside in Europe; they tend to stick to the cities, especially the big and famous ones (London, Paris, Amsterdam, Vienna, Milano, Firenze, Roma and Napoli are probably the most popular).

The only exceptions might be the Cotswolds and the Lake District in England... France has plenty of great regions for nature : the Ardeche, Auvergne, Cevennes, Provence, Jura, Alps, Pyrenees, Perigord... These regions are packed with European tourists in summer, and yet Japanese tourists are extremely rare there. Go to the Galeries Lafayette in Paris or shopping streets of Milano and all you will see is long queues of Japanese women waiting to buy Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Prada bags... My impression from that is that Japanese women prefer a dead animal's skin than a live one.

Another reason to believe that the modern Japanese don't care much about animals is that vegetarianism is almost unheard of in Japan (apart from a few Buddhist priests, esp. around Kyoto). In some European countries (UK, Belgium, Germany...) it has become so popular that it any self-respected restaurant has a vegetarian menu.

[Maciamo]

There many other animal names missing in Japanese. There may be over 100 with all the male (castrated or not, like in bull vs ox), female, child, meat, cry and general term like these :

sheep : ram, ewe, lamb / mutton / to bleat
goat : buck/billy/wether, doe/nanny, kid / chevon / to bleat
cattle : bull/ox, cow, calf / beef / to moo
deer : stag/buck, hind/doe, fawn / venison / to bell
pig/swine/hog : boar/barrow, sow/gilt, piglet/shoat / pork / to grunt, squeal
chicken : ****/rooster, hen, chick / chicken/poultry / to crow, bwuck, cheep

...and also (I replaced the meat by the adjective below) :

horse : stallion/gelding, mare, foal (colt/filly) / equestrian / to neigh, whinney
dog : dog, *****, puppy => adj. = canine / to bark, bay, howl, whine, and yap
cat : tomcat, tabby, kitten => adj. = feline / to mew, purr

fox : tod/reynard, vixen, kit/pup / to bark and yelp

Add to this the special term for groups of such animals (herd, pack, skulk...).

English is not unique for having so many words for common animals. It is standard in European languages. It is Japanese (and many other Asian languages) that lack nuances. Just check the cries of animals page on Wikipedia, which only has translations in European languages. Another evidence that the Japanese/Asians do not care as much about animals as Europeans.

[sabro]

I'm not certain that having differing names for males and females and the young of a species makes them more "childish and primitive" either. It would seem to be a jump in logic to make such an assumption. I also don't know if it follows that vegetarians care more about nature than other humans.

[Mikawa Ossan]

I have always though that words like "centipede" and "octopus" were very childish English words. Not to mention "millipede". I guess English doesn't care enough about animals with more than 4 feet.

[Maciamo]

I have always though that words like "centipede" and "octopus" were very childish English words. Not to mention "millipede". I guess English doesn't care enough about animals with more than 4 feet.

I understand you claim about the centipede (which does not necesaarily have 100 legs), but octopuses do have 8 legs. Nevertheless, there are thousands of species of centipedes/millipedes, with a total number of legs varying between 80 and 400 legs for common species (up to 200 for centipedes), so in some cases the term centipede can actually be correct. I suppose it is for the sake of convenience that we have not given different names to each species according to their exact number of legs !

[Maciamo]

I'm not certain that having differing names for males and females and the young of a species makes them more "childish and primitive" either. It would seem to be a jump in logic to make such an assumption.

Children use more simple vocabulary than adults, hence saying "female deer" because they don't know the proper word (doe) does sounds more childish. If the Japanese constantly say "male/female something" instead of having a special word for it, it consequently sounds more childish for speakers of a language which has those special words. Considered as a "society's language" (as oppose to individual knowledge of a language), the absence of such words make this language look primitive compared to other languages with more words.

I also don't know if it follows that vegetarians care more about nature than other humans.

It depends what is the reason for vegetarianism. If it is just because you don't like meat or think it is not good for health, then not necessarily. But almost all the vergetarians I know are vegetarian because they do not want to kill animals. Strict Hindus and Jains are vegetarian because their religion tells them not to kill any animal. True Jains go so far as to watch their steps in order not to crush an insect, and wear a mask in front of their mouth to be sure not to swallow a mosquito. They also prohibit anything made of leather or other products made from dead animals. You cannot enter a Jaina temple with a leather belt, wallet or shoes. Doesn't that show a greater respect for nature ? Isn't that intricately linked to their vegetarianism ? (for the record, I am not a vegetarian)

[sabro]

So, in my own defense, I asked if the Inuit had a dozen words for snow. I never pretended to know the answer... and the point was actually about some assumption of linguistics. I believe that Maciamo is wrong to draw conclusion about how much a culture cares about nature based upon his linguistic interpretation. It doesn't mean that he is wrong about whether or not the Japanese care about nature, just that the linguistic angle makes little sense and I have not heard it being used to determine such cultural values any where else. If he is correct however, cultural linguists could write some interesting stuff about what cultures value based upon word count.

I get called ignorant. But responding will most certainly cause me more infraction points. I see insults and evasions and a thread that is off topic... but again, mentioning it will probably earn me consequences.

Perhaps the question is phrased a bit too simply and the way the Japanese conceptualize nature and how they express appriciation is different in the cultural context.

[Maciamo]

So, in my own defense, I asked if the Inuit had a dozen words for snow. I never pretended to know the answer... and the point was actually about some assumption of linguistics. I believe that Maciamo is wrong to draw conclusion about how much a culture cares about nature based upon his linguistic interpretation.

I explained that if it wasn't because of a lack of care and observation, it was probably because of a lack of scientific-mindedness. Another possibility might just be that the Japanese do not care about details in general, thus oddly omitting to invent words not only to differentiate gender in animals, but also give names to their young (only a few exceptions, like ひよこ for "chick") and names for their cries (also a few exceptions, like 吠える and 鳴く).

The absence of gender for animal names is only one of the numerous arguments that make me think that the Japanese society has cared less about animals and nature in general in the past and/or present (depending on the argument). Let me remind you of a few others mentioned so far :

- absence of an elected Green Party (could also be said of the USA and a few European countries)

- proportionally fewer members of WWF and Greenpeace, and fewer major organisations for nature protection (they do exist, but are nowhere as influential as in Western countries)

- government-sponsored destruction of nature, relative lack of biodiversity in man-made nature (e.g. in parks), and especially disfiguration of the natural scenery through the unrestrained construction of (usually pretty useless) concrete eyesores nationwide.

- abundance of illegal dumping sites, fairly frequent radioctive leaks from nuclear plants, numerous dioxin emitting incinerators (illegal in most of Europe)... Let's also remember the Minamata disease, Itai-itai disease, Yokkaichi Asthma, Sugi allergy and other diseases or public health issues caused by careless industrial or personal waste dumping or poor government policies.

- "enjoying nature" in Japan typically involves crowded asphalted paths with vending machines, shops, signs and advertisments all along the journey.

- Japan is the only major country with a whaling policy, which it strongly defends against the will of the international community (going as far as buying votes from developing countries).

- virtual absence of vegetarianism in modern Japanese society, despite an ever growing trend in this sense in Western countries (esp. by animal lovers).

- Impressively small mumber of zoological or botanic gardens in Japan (Belgium does better, despite being 13x smaller)

- Huge national consumption of single-use wooden chopsticks causing reckless deforestation in many developing countries, when plastic chopsticks could be used instead.

- Fear-induced respect of nature inherited from Shintoism, still well alive today, and probably part of the reason why the Japanese feel they have to protect themselves so much from their natural environment by damming rivers, placing concrete tripods all along the coast, or replacing diversified forest by sugi forest...


Language is only a detail in all this, but a detail that goes in the same direction as the rest, that of a general lack of care, respect or understanding of nature.

I get called ignorant. But responding will most certainly cause me more infraction points. I see insults and evasions and a thread that is off topic... but again, mentioning it will probably earn me consequences.

I do not recall calling you "ignorant" in this regard. As for infractions, I have never given any for disagreeing with me, only for breaking the rules (e.g. posting specific offtopic comments when it is against noth forum rules and that thread's rules), or not wanting to comply with moderation request (only happened to 1 person so far) or free and unprovoked personal insults (as happened to you once).

[Maciamo]

I split the offtopic about words for love, colours and snow as well as the other long offtopic about insults.

[Maciamo]

Compared to British and French channels, the main Japanese TV channels have very few documentaries about animals and nature. I don't need to introduce the BBC in the matter. But I suppose that most of JREF's members are not well acquainted with French-speaking TV, so I will list a few famous programmes NB : TF1 if the most popular French channel, France 3 is the 3rd most popular French chanel, and RTBF is the Belgian equivalent of the BBC)

- Ushuaia (originally a TV programmes on TF1, running since 1987, that has become its own channel in 2005 through its success; there is also a magazine version)
- Thalassa (weekly TV documentary reporting on Nautical, Maritime and Oceanic matters on France 3 since 1975)
- 30 millions d'amis (TV documentary running on TF1 since 1976; it is also a foundation for the protection of animals and a magazine)
- Le Jardin Extraordinaire (Belgian TV documentary about nature broadcasted since 1971, and the first colour Tv programme broadcasted in Belgium)
- Commandant Cousteau (the man made numerous films and TV documentaries, and the Cousteau Society continues to promote his work)

There are many others but these are the most famous, longest running, and showed on the biggest channels and the best hours.

[Maciamo]

I moved the discussion about the meaning of "single word" to the offtopic about words for love, colours and snow.

[pipokun]

A terrible earthquake had it happened on land, but in the sea it only produced a small tsunami.

Don't forget what happened just two years ago.

Shirakami-Sanchi, a beautiful mountain area in the northern honshu, has been registered as a world-heritage site. Some areas, however, turn to be off-limits to anybody incl. Matagi, traditional hunters.

You may think it hypocratic that many institutes conducting animal tests here do memorial services for the animals, but it is a bit more peaceful than violent activists, isn't it? I totally agree the fewer tests, the better, though.

[caster51]

Because what interests me here is whether our members think (through Japanese propaganda, for instance) that the Japanese indeed love nature more than all people in the world (not just Europeans).

？？
BTW
who is thinking like that?

[ralian]

Maciamo, have you ever thought how much you are hurting our feeling by bashing Japan like this?
Maybe you will say that you are not bashing Japan at all.
However, what you are doing here is hurting JREF.
I certainly do not appreciate your effort.
Your aurgument here is quite irrelevant and incorrect.

[Maciamo]

Maciamo, have you ever thought how much you are hurting our feeling by bashing Japan like this?
Maybe you will say that you are not bashing Japan at all.
However, what you are doing here is hurting JREF.
I certainly do not appreciate your effort.
Your aurgument here is quite irrelevant and incorrect.

I could say the same. Do you have any idea how much you (the Japanese) have been hurting my feelings by bashing the rest of the world like this ?
Maybe you will say that you are not bashing the rest of the world at all.
Your argument here is quite irrelevant and incorrect.

[Kinsao]

Hmm - I have been following this discussion with interest, although a lot of the points about language escaped me because my knowledge of Japanese isn't good enough to follow them.

It seems to me that Maciamo is making 2 main points to argue that the Japanese do not particularly "love nature" more than other nations (not to say that they love it any less, but merely not more):

1. The language contains fewer separate/non-compound words for different species/sub-species of animals, and the classifications are less accurate than in many European languages - implying that historically-speaking (i.e. while the language was in development) the Japanese people in general did not have sufficient interest in and/or love of nature to classify animal and plant species as accurately as Europeans did.

2. Proportionately fewer Japanese people visit countryside parks in their spare time.

Well, I can't speak about the development of language, since I know nothing about it. Languages are very complicated in the way they develop (hence the other thread for this). Certainly, it seems logical that nations/races would develop the most extensive vocabulary in areas that are of particular use to them (and hence of particular interest) - whether that be hunting, fishing, agriculture, snow, whatever.

It could be that it is rather an issue of "inaccurate" language, and a generally more haphazard approach to classification of species, rather than a disinterest. This could be more connected to the development of the Japanese language rather than their relationship to the natural world - but as I've said, I don't know enough about the language and its history, so that's just one possible hypothesis. So I will leave that point alone.

The proportion of people visiting countryside parks and such... Hmm, I wonder, what would be the reason for a lower proportion? Of course, obviously one reason would be that fewer people are interested in nature, in the sense of going outside and experiencing it. But what could be the reason for this? I wonder if it is linked at all to upbringing and education. For instance, if the government doesn't think it's worthwhile for schools to teach much about the natural world, people would be much more inclined to grow up without much knowledge about "nature" (I see this happening in my own generation in the UK, sadly). So partly it's not that people have some kind of "inherent" disinterest, but rather that an interest is not awakened in them, either by teachers at school or handed on by their parents.

Of course, that implies a deep-seated "culture of disinterest", and makes me ask even more questions.

I find it hard to believe that the Japanese as a nation have always had a disinterest in the natural world, because like every other nation, this is essential for survival and to get strong and prosperous, and an involvement with "nature" can only actually be dropped when a nation has reached a certain stage of social and technological advancement that allows people to live their lives at something of a remove from nature - e.g., don't have to harvest and/or kill their own food any more, have substantial and reliable protection from adverse weather conditions, and other things like that. Japan is, of course, well technologically-advanced and in fact is well-known for being pretty up at front these days when it comes to such things. But it wasn't always the case. It is a country that has developed very fast in a relatively short space of time. So my little theorylet says that perhaps in some respects Japan and its people are in a kind of "honeymoon period" with technology. It's new, and it's great, and it could be that in this particular time of Japan's history, there is a keenness for "in with the new" and a consequent lowering of interest in the timeless background to life that is "nature".

On the other hand, that could just be me blethering complete and utter rubbish.

I tend to feel that Japanese people in general have neither more nor less love of nature than any other nation. I also think that, at least at the present time, their appreciation tends to be more "aesthetic" rather than "analytical". For example, I'm sure that Japanese people are as likely as anyone else to enjoy the shape and scent of a beautiful flower, appreciate an impressive mountain range, take photos of trees, enjoy the sound of a waterfall or the song of a bird, etc. etc., even without the precision of language to describe species or the education and encouragement to actively seek out such things.

When it comes down to it, I suppose it also depends largely on whether you're discussing the Japanese "psyche" or the Japanese "culture", which are of course inter-related but not the same thing! (IMO while "cultures" are widely different around the world, "psyche" is not so different.)

Another factor in proportion of people visiting countryside parks is about how easy it is for people to get to them. What proportion of the Japanese population lives in cities/urban areas? I imagine it's pretty high although I don't know the figures. I also imagine (although have no idea whether I'm right! :/) that transport links are pretty good, but it could also be costly. Ease and speed of access is a factor in things like that. It might seem a bit way-out to those of you who own cars and/or earn plenty, but I assure you that here in the UK I know a fair number of people who rarely, if ever, visit the countryside, not because they have no interest in it, but simply because, "stuck" in the city, they have not the time and/or money for a visit to be worth their while. I know the UK is not Japan (!) but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this situation wasn't reflected to some extent in Japan, especially considering all that I've heard about the long working hours expected in Japan.

[Maciamo]

Hmm - I have been following this discussion with interest, although a lot of the points about language escaped me because my knowledge of Japanese isn't good enough to follow them.
It seems to me that Maciamo is making 2 main points to argue that the Japanese do not particularly "love nature" more than other nations (not to say that they love it any less, but merely not more):

Yes, that is pretty much it. You are one of the few people in this discussion who actually managed to understand what I wrote.

However, there aren't only two main points in my argumentation, but 12, as you will see if you go back to the first post in this thread and check at the bottom the 13 reasons that I have added later to summarise my thoughts. We have discussed a lot about language and parks so far, but I consider these 2 points to be the weakest of my 13 arguments. In fact I didn't even mention that the Japanese visit less often countryside parks, because I do not have verificable data on this (but I do for the percentage of houses with garden).

The strongest arguments that make me think that the Japanese do not cherish nature more than Westerners (and probably less) are : the relative lack of houses with garden, the little number of botanical and zoological gardens, the little number of nature documentaries on the main TV channels, the absence of elected Green Party, and the near absence of vegetarianism. These are all provable facts. The whaling policy doesn't concern the whole population (although a higher percentage of Japanese than Westerners support whaling, polls have shown), and government-sponsored destruction reveals more about the people working for the government than the general population.

[craftsman]

The strongest arguments that make me think that the Japanese do not cherish nature more than Westerners (and probably less) are : the relative lack of houses with garden, the little number of botanical and zoological gardens, the little number of nature documentaries on the main TV channels, the absence of elected Green Party, and the near absence of vegetarianism. These are all provable facts.

You mentioned you had some figures for the houses with gardens. I had a quick look and couldn't see them in the posts. It would be interesting to see them. If I missed them perhaps you could point me in the right direction. Also it would be useful to see the number of zoos and botanical gardens in Japan and the figures on vegetarianism, if possible.


Another thing that would be useful to see is your figures for the number of nature shows on Japanese TV. I saw your post about the French speaking channels and nature programmes but unless there is a comparison with Japanese TV, it holds less value in the argument. I had a look but things have moved around a bit recently, so if I missed it, my apologies.

Lastly, I'm not totally convinced of the strength of 'the absence of an elected Green Party' as one of your arguments. You even mention yourself that the same could be said of the US and other European countries. An elected Green party says more about the political and state funding system in the country than it does about normal everyday people's likes or dislikes.

[Maciamo]

You mentioned you had some figures for the houses with gardens. I had a quick look and couldn't see them in the posts. It would be interesting to see them. If I missed them perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

I found that when I was in Japan. I am pretty sure it was somewhere here, but I cannot find the right table anymore. Anyway, how many houses with garden/yard have you seen in Tokyo ? Personally, none.

Also it would be useful to see the number of zoos and botanical gardens in Japan and the figures on vegetarianism, if possible.

Phew. Do you think I can find all the links like that. Why don't you look and try to confirm or deny my claims. Here is a list of botanical gardens in Japan. Feel free to compare the number and size with Western countries, and make the per capita ratio. The only botanic garden in Tokyo (23 wards) is Koishikawa Shokubutsuen (the one of Tokyo University). It is ridiculously tiny (16 ha) and only has 4,000 species of plants. There are two botanic gardens in Brussels, the biggest of which is 92 ha wide and has 18,000 species of plants (so about 5x bigger in size and variety than that of the world-famous Tokyo University).

Be it for the zoological gardens (list here), it also depends what you define as such. Japanese language does not clearly distinguish between zoos, animal parks, safari parks, bird parks, animal theme parks, and sometimes even natural/animal reserves. I have seen some of the so-called 動物園 in Japan and they do not deserve more the appellation of zoo than some farms. It's always good to compare the best a country has to offer, so as to compare the top. I have been to Ueno Zoo, which is Japan's first and most famous zoo, and it wasn't very impressive (well, it has pandas, which is partly why it is famous). It has only 422 species and 2,600 animals, against 950 species and over 5,000 animals for the Antwerp Zoo in my ridiculously tiny country (so tiny that many Japanese and Americans cannot place it on a map of Europe).

It's sad to have to compare Tokyo to Brussels, or Japan to Belgium, and still have the latter win...

As for vegetarianism, I mean by that not eating any meat (including fish and seafood), even if it is not visible (e.g. in sauce or soup). What interest us here is not to kill animals, so eggs and milk are fine, but animal fat is not, as it requires to kill the animal. Anyone who has lived or travelled in Japan knows that it is extremely hard to find Japanese food matching those criteria. My sister is a vegetarian (because she doesn't want to kill animals), and she came twice to Japan (about 3 weeks each time). We travelled through half of the country, and I can tell you that it was a p.i.t.a. to find something else than bread, pastries, pasta and Indian food for her to eat. Vegetarian Japanese food is mostly restricted to Buddhist cuisine (rare outside Kyoto), or a few dishes like soba and vegetable tempura. Anthing else has meat in it. Japan is clearly not a vegetarian-friendly country. In restaurants they were often surprised at the request to serve a dish without meat because no Japanese ever ask them (we were seen as the difficult gaijin ), while in Europe they are so used to it that most restaurant now have at least a few vegetarian dishes or will gladly cook a special dish without meat. I remember the time we asked in a "omu-rice" restaurant chain if we could have a dish without bacon mixed with the rice for my sister who is a vegetarian. The waitress asked the chef, and after 10min of "negotiation" she came back telling us that it was impossible because the chef didn't want to serve a dish that didn't taste the way he wanted. We were 4 people, and we had to leave to find another restaurant, just because they couldn't accomodate a vegetarian. We had other similar experiences elsewhere too.

Another thing that would be useful to see is your figures for the number of nature shows on Japanese TV. I saw your post about the French speaking channels and nature programmes but unless there is a comparison with Japanese TV, it holds less value in the argument.

I suppose that anybody really interested on this forum knows Japanese TV programmes... If not, I invite you to check this online TV guide. Keep me informed on your findings.

Lastly, I'm not totally convinced of the strength of 'the absence of an elected Green Party' as one of your arguments. You even mention yourself that the same could be said of the US and other European countries.

The USA is not really an example in environmental protection. They even refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Here is more info on Green Parties around the world. You will see that the Greens are one of the major parties at the European Parliament. There are in fact two main Green Parties, one of which is the 4th biggest at the parlaiment out of a good dozen of parties. All the Greens got 6.5% of the votes Europe-wide at the 2004 election. They are especially strong in Scandinavia, Germany and Belgium. In Belgium, for instance, the Green Party is a ruling coalition party in many levels of government (municipality, province, region, country), and even the majority party in a few municipalities.

An elected Green party says more about the political and state funding system in the country than it does about normal everyday people's likes or dislikes.

I disagree. In fact, I think there is a Green Party in Japan, but nobody has ever elected them. If it must take money and startling campaigns for people to care about nature, then it is a sign of lack of general concern by the population.