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

[Maciamo]

This is all very strange because I've found almost the complete opposite. Hiking has always been popular and even in the centre of Tokyo it is very common at weekends to see groups of people in hiking boots and floppy hats on their way to a bus and long distance train.

My comments are based on my impressions as a "proportion to the total population". In this regard it is undeniable, for instance, that a much higher proportion of Japanese do not have a garden, and that Japanese cities have a smaller percentage of greenery than in most Western countries. I am pretty sure that if you could the proportion of people going hiking in the country frequently, it will also be lower in Japan than in Europe. On warm and sunny days most of the Ardennes region of Belgium (hilly forest in the south) are fully packed with Flemish and Dutch tourists.

You may have been in wrong place to see the gradual change of seasons. I'm presuming you lived in Tokyo. But your constant comparison to Europe and Belgium in particular are to me slightly odd. I've been to Belgium and it seemed to me to be a pleasant country but I was certainly not struck by the nature.

Exactly ! Belgian people hardly think about their country when they think about nature. YET, since I am back to Belgium, and even in the capital, I have found it to be much greener and a much better place to enjoy nature than Tokyo. Yet the greater Tokyo has 3.5 times the population of Belgium. On a side note, I suppose that like most short-term visitors you haven't been to the nicest part of the Wallonian countryside when you went to Belgium, but stuck to the cities (Brussels, Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp...). Did you know that Brussels had half of the lagest beech forest in Europe within its boundaries ?

Stoicism is not solely a Belgian trait nor is it a European trait but the world over including Japan.

Isn't that a broad overgeneralisation ?

However, your comments smack too much of generalizations. With your rivers figure I'm guessing you mean large rivers that run through towns and cities. Surely you don't mean all rivers....do you? And all over the hills and mountains? I'm going to presume you mean all over some here.

I meant all, according to Alex Kerr in Dogs and Demons. If it isn't correct, complain to him, not to me. But be aware than a river is not the same as a brook or a stream. A river must be wide and deep enough to be navigable.

I seriously doubt that Mac toured every river in Japan to it's entire length to esure that it is layered with concrete!

Answered above.

It is a difficult question to answer without relying on impressions and stereotypes... What do you think about the people of an entire nation? In the end, your answer probably says more about yourself than anything else. We see in a broad sense what we want to see, good and bad. We know only what we know. My favorable impressions are based on the fine Japanese people I have known and what little research I have done. What I see in the media tends to confirm what I think I know... I love the Japanese people, and Japanese culture. BUT I know very little about it first hand.

So basically you are posting to say that you cannot give your opinion because you don't know enough about Japan ? Not a tremendous contribution to the thread...

[DoctorP]

I meant all, according to Alex Kerr in Dogs and Demons. If it isn't correct, complain to him, not to me. But be aware than a river is not the same as a brook or a stream. A river must be wide and deep enough to be navigable.

Thank you for pointing out that you have no idea for yourself. As I stated, you personally do not know and are merely quoting someone else that as far as you know is not entirely correct. I believe that if you were to check his references it would indicate that he is talking about where rivers pass through major metropolitan areas.

If a river were indeed bordered completely by concrete, then it would be man made, and not truly a river then would it?

[Maciamo]

Thank you for pointing out that you have no idea for yourself.

No need to attack me personally.

As I stated, you personally do not know and are merely quoting someone else that as far as you know is not entirely correct. I believe that if you were to check his references it would indicate that he is talking about where rivers pass through major metropolitan areas.
If a river were indeed bordered completely by concrete, then it would be man made, and not truly a river then would it?

If you want to prove Kerr wrong, why don't you give me examples of rivers in Japan that have not been "concreted" ?

[Mike Cash]

If you want to prove Kerr wrong, why don't you give me examples of rivers in Japan that have not been "concreted" ?

Just right here around me locally, how about 荒川, 利根川 and 渡良瀬川?

They do have limited stretches with concrete reinforcements on the banks, typically in urban areas as has been pointed out already.

Even in areas without the concrete reinforced banks, though, unsightly earthen levees are the norm for large stretches of river. These are an absolute necessity, though, for flood control. I've seen vintage film footage of what happened right here in Kiryu soon after the end of the war, prior to any flood control measures being put into effect. It was horrible, to say the least.

I like watching documentaries about nature, and in my 4 years in Japan I almost cannot remember seeing such documentaries on the 7 main (free) channels in Tokyo (NHK, NHK2, Nihon TV, TBS, Fuji TV, Asahi TV, Tokyo TV).

Well, maybe some day you'll be able to come here for something other than such a short visit.

I absolutely hate Japanese television and in most cases would rather take an *** whipping than even be in the same room with it....but even I've seen nature documentaries. (Technically, NHK isn't free, by the way).

[craftsman]

My comments are based on my impressions as a "proportion to the total population". In this regard it is undeniable, for instance, that a much higher proportion of Japanese do not have a garden, and that Japanese cities have a smaller percentage of greenery than in most Western countries. I am pretty sure that if you could the proportion of people going hiking in the country frequently, it will also be lower in Japan than in Europe. On warm and sunny days most of the Ardennes region of Belgium (hilly forest in the south) are fully packed with Flemish and Dutch tourists.

I don't doubt that the Ardennes are packed with tourists. What I don't understand is why you suggest that places like the Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park are not equally packed (proportionately or not). And I don't understand the necessity to compare hiking patterns with Europe. Why are you so sure that going hiking frequently is more prevalent in Europe? Or even in Belgium? It's just such a bizarre position to take. Surely not just because you see more people doing it in Belgium than you saw in Japan? If so, I think you know my answer by now - you should have got out of Tokyo more. And I still don't quite get what made you think that Japanese don't like nature in the first place?

Exactly ! Belgian people hardly think about their country when they think about nature. YET, since I am back to Belgium, and even in the capital, I have found it to be much greener and a much better place to enjoy nature than Tokyo. Yet the greater Tokyo has 3.5 times the population of Belgium. On a side note, I suppose that like most short-term visitors you haven't been to the nicest part of the Wallonian countryside when you went to Belgium, but stuck to the cities (Brussels, Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp...). Did you know that Brussels had half of the lagest beech forest in Europe within its boundaries ?

No, you're right I didn't explore Belgium properly and just went from city to city. And I didn't know about the Wallonian countryside nor about the beech forests. But this too is exactly my point. It is very difficult to really get to know a total country from the city, especially when based in a capital city like Tokyo.
I think your comparison of Belgium and Tokyo is an odd one. I don't want to state the obvious but is it a fair comparison to compare the nature of a country and a city? Surely you should compare Japan and Belgium. However, no disrespect to you, but I suspect your knowledge would fall short outside of the Tokyo area.

I meant all, according to Alex Kerr in Dogs and Demons. If it isn't correct, complain to him, not to me. But be aware than a river is not the same as a brook or a stream. A river must be wide and deep enough to be navigable.

Now I haven't read Mr.Kerr's book so I can't comment on the figure. It would be interesting to see how he got it and how reliable the information is though. From my perspective, I think he may have meant cities and large towns because of the rivers I've seen, I don't think his argument rings true. This was ten years ago, but I did walk every step of the way from the northern most tip of Hokkaido to the southern most tip of Kuyshu and I saw a lot of rivers - some of them actually without concrete. As I'm sure you're aware by now, I live in a national park and I can walk down to a navigable river which is both deep and wide and see no sign of concrete.
So I would go as far to say that an obscene amount of concrete is unfortunately used to 'protect' rivers in Japan, but not all of them. That would be a generalization too far, even for you, Sir

[Maciamo]

I don't doubt that the Ardennes are packed with tourists. What I don't understand is why you suggest that places like the Fuji-Hakone-Izu National Park are not equally packed (proportionately or not).

It makes a huge differences whether it is proportional or not. You cannot compare one of Japan's most famous national park (because of Mount Fuji) in the outskirt of the Greater Tokyo (35 million inhabitants), which also happens to be one of Japan's main touristic destination outside cities for foreign tourists, with the more sparsely populated and less famous Ardennes region of Belgium. It is only natural that a national park sitting just outside the biggest metropolis in the world is packed on weekends. But what is the percentage of the Japanese population that actually goes out hiking on weekends ? Imagine, if it is only 1%, it means that 1.27 million local tourists are on the roads at the same time. 1% of Tokyoites alone means 350,000 people. Brussels is by far the largest city within 2h by car of the Ardennes and its population is 1 million with the suburbs (130,000 for the centre). The 2nd biggest city has barely 250,000 inhabitants. In such circumstances it is obvious that proportions do matter.

If you want to compare Japan's natural attractions and the number of "nature tourists", compare it to a region with the same population, like Belgium (10 million inhabitants) + France (60m) + Italy (60m).

Why are you so sure that going hiking frequently is more prevalent in Europe? Or even in Belgium?

I have a pretty good intuition about things like that. Then don't forget that I did go around Japan and learn about every touristic attraction and national park in detail to write this website's Japan Sightseeing Guide. I am also writing travel guides about European countries, and I love statistics (e.g. about tourism).

And I still don't quite get what made you think that Japanese don't like nature in the first place?

Easy, the destruction of it. It's like for history; the Japanese don't like or don't care about history, which is why they have so little knowledge about history, and had no scruples destroying their own historic heritage after WWII (best example : Kyoto). I didn't say that the Japanese do not like nature, but that they certainly seem to care less about it and its protection than we do in Europe. Again, why is there no Green Party in Japan, when you see that it was the 2nd or 3rd most popular party at the last municipal elections in Belgium last month ? Why does Greenpeace of WWF have a lower percentage of members in Japan than in many Western countries ? Why haven't the Japanese (with the 2nd most populous developed country on Earth) started major organisations for the protection of the environment with a worldwide network ? Why don't the Japanese protest more about the government pouring concrete over the coastline and mountains, or cutting down forest to plant sugi (Japanese cedar) that gives allergies to half of the population ? Why is Japan the only major nation to support whaling ? Why do the Japanese use billions of wooden chopsticks a year when they could use plastic ones instead ? Why aren't there more zoos or botanic gardens in Japan ? Why does Japan, with a land area bigger than any EU country but France and Spain, only have [url=http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_are_und_pro-environment-areas-under-protection]96 protected areas under IUCN management, when Germany has 7,315 and Switzerland has 2,177 of them ? Why is it that Japanese language itself does not differentiate as much between animals as English or other European languages (e.g. turtle vs tortoise, mouse vs rat vs shrew vs vole, whale vs rorqual vs orc, or using the kanji for fish [魚] in the kanji for whale [鯨]) ? I have many many other examples in my head, but I don't have the time or energy to write them all now. Alex Kerr has plenty more of well-documented examples in "Dogs & Demons" (you really should read it).

No, you're right I didn't explore Belgium properly and just went from city to city. And I didn't know about the Wallonian countryside nor about the beech forests. But this too is exactly my point. It is very difficult to really get to know a total country from the city, especially when based in a capital city like Tokyo. [
...
However, no disrespect to you, but I suspect your knowledge would fall short outside of the Tokyo area.

Except if you are writing a guide of Japan and travel around the country for that purpose... I don't know where you have been in Japan, but I certainly have seen more of that country than most foreigners in Japan and most Japanese alike.

Anyway, I never said that Japan was not beautiful for its nature, my criticism is about Japanese people who claim that they love nature more than others because of Shintoism, their long passion for cherry blossoms, etc. But when we do compare with other developed countries, their claim sounds nonsensical, because of what I have explained above.

This was ten years ago, but I did walk every step of the way from the northern most tip of Hokkaido to the southern most tip of Kuyshu and I saw a lot of rivers - some of them actually without concrete.

How do you know ? Have you been all the way from the spring to the sea ? Kerr's claim is not that all rivers have concrete banks on all their length, but at least at one point or another (even a few hundred metres). At the time he wrote the book, there was only one river in Japan that didn't have concrete anywhere from the beginning to the end (in Shikoku, if I remember well).

[craftsman]

It makes a huge differences whether it is proportional or not. You cannot compare one of Japan's most famous national park (because of Mount Fuji) in the outskirt of the Greater Tokyo (35 million inhabitants), which also happens to be one of Japan's main touristic destination outside cities for foreign tourists, with the more sparsely populated and less famous Ardennes region of Belgium. It is only natural that a national park sitting just outside the biggest metropolis in the world is packed on weekends. But what is the percentage of the Japanese population that actually goes out hiking on weekends ? Imagine, if it is only 1%, it means that 1.27 million local tourists are on the roads at the same time. 1% of Tokyoites alone means 350,000 people. Brussels is by far the largest city within 2h by car of the Ardennes and its population is 1 million with the suburbs (130,000 for the centre). The 2nd biggest city has barely 250,000 inhabitants. In such circumstances it is obvious that proportions do matter.

I think you missed the whole point. You previously claimed the following:

I found that the Japanese are not big fans of hiking in the country at weekends, going to national parks (the US is great for that), work in their garden, watch nature documentaries (the UK is great for that), or fight to preserve their bit of nature and scenery near their house.

So you accept the Fuji-Hakone-Izu national park is packed, well let me tell you that the Kirishima national park is also packed every weekend, the Daisetsuzan national park is packed and no doubt every one of the 28 national parks. So what does my 'intuition' say about this? It says that Japanese people like to take a walk in natural surroundings on the weekends. Whether proportionately more people do that in your tiny country is quite irrelevant. The fact is, your claim that Japanese are not big fans of hiking in the country is plain ludicrous. As of course your claim about nature programmes. BBC Bristol has a dedicated nature department which makes a lot of wildlife programmes even in Japan - I once joined a BBC crew filming monkeys in Nagano - and because of their output on British TV, you appear to be arguing that Japanese people like nature programmes less than British. Can you not see the lunacy?

I have a pretty good intuition about things like that. Then don't forget that I did go around Japan and learn about every touristic attraction and national park in detail to write this website's Japan Sightseeing Guide. I am also writing travel guides about European countries, and I love statistics (e.g. about tourism).

Yes, I think I got the statistics part. But please, intuition? Is that a valid reason to make preposterous claims? It is clear that you have 'learnt about' a great many things about Japan, but, without getting too personal, you seem to have understood very little.

Except if you are writing a guide of Japan and travel around the country for that purpose... I don't know where you have been in Japan, but I certainly have seen more of that country than most foreigners in Japan and most Japanese alike.

Well, no I wasn't writing a guide but was a guest of the Socialist Party of Japan and the Japanese Trades Union Congress and my goal was to meet small communities and groups of social, economic and environmental activists on a 5 month walking trip all across Japan. So statistics or no statistics, the people are out there - it's just you never met them.

Anyway, I never said that Japan was not beautiful for its nature, my criticism is about Japanese people who claim that they love nature more than others because of Shintoism, their long passion for cherry blossoms, etc.

Ah but you did say this:

Japan is a country 13x the size of Belgium (where I live now), with the exact same population density, and I haven't seen a tenth of the natural beauty found in Belgium

And it does seem to be an insinuation that Japan is not as beautiful as Belgium, does it not? If you have been to all the places you claim in Japan, either you need to get your eyes checked or Belgium should sack its tourism minister.

How do you know ? Have you been all the way from the spring to the sea ?

Steady, steady. I read a voice raised.

Kerr's claim is not that all rivers have concrete banks on all their length, but at least at one point or another (even a few hundred metres). At the time he wrote the book, there was only one river in Japan that didn't have concrete anywhere from the beginning to the end (in Shikoku, if I remember well).

So now we have a much better understanding of Kerr's statement than the previous one you made. And yes, considering the concrete used in bridges he may have a point with this.

[Maciamo]

I think you missed the whole point. You previously claimed the following:
So you accept the Fuji-Hakone-Izu national park is packed, well let me tell you that the Kirishima national park is also packed every weekend, the Daisetsuzan national park is packed and no doubt every one of the 28 national parks.

You still miss my point. These parks may be packed, but it would be because the Japanese go to the same places justly because there are so few big national parks. Why is there so few ? Because of lawmakers policy. Who elects the lawmakers ? The people. A country's people is often a reflection of its own lawmakers and government.

So what does my 'intuition' say about this? It says that Japanese people like to take a walk in natural surroundings on the weekends. Whether proportionately more people do that in your tiny country is quite irrelevant.

OK, let's stop the discussion here you will never get my point.

As of course your claim about nature programmes. BBC Bristol has a dedicated nature department which makes a lot of wildlife programmes even in Japan - I once joined a BBC crew filming monkeys in Nagano - and because of their output on British TV, you appear to be arguing that Japanese people like nature programmes less than British. Can you not see the lunacy?

Lunacy ? I like watching documentaries about nature, and in my 4 years in Japan I almost cannot remember seeing such documentaries on the 7 main (free) channels in Tokyo (NHK, NHK2, Nihon TV, TBS, Fuji TV, Asahi TV, Tokyo TV). On the BBC, I can see them several times a week. Of course I wasn't all the time in front of the TV, but the same is true when I live(d) in Europe.

Yes, I think I got the statistics part. But please, intuition? Is that a valid reason to make preposterous claims? It is clear that you have 'learnt about' a great many things about Japan, but, without getting too personal, you seem to have understood very little.

I could say the exact same thing about you. Quite franky, I do not think that you understand Japan better than me.

Well, no I wasn't writing a guide but was a guest of the Socialist Party of Japan and the Japanese Trades Union Congress and my goal was to meet small communities and groups of social, economic and environmental activists on a 5 month walking trip all across Japan. So statistics or no statistics, the people are out there - it's just you never met them.

Just my point. Why didn't I meet them or hear more about them ? Because they are so few and far between. Btw, the Socialist Party of Japan is a tiny opposition party. I also don't see what Socialist have anoting to do with the Green Party. In Europe it is the Socialists (and even more the Communists) that have been responsible for the worst environmental destruction.

And it does seem to be an insinuation that Japan is not as beautiful as Belgium, does it not? If you have been to all the places you claim in Japan, either you need to get your eyes checked or Belgium should sack its tourism minister.

Steady, steady. I read a voice raised.

This is a good example of how writing on a forum does not convey at all the emotions of the speaker. I said that with a shrug as I couldn't care less what you think. I only reply by courtesy but I am seriously fed up of people caviling about every little details I write without ever looking at the big picture. I dislike offtopics, yet your force me the hand.

This thread is "What do you like about Japan and Japanese people?", and I answered that in my first reply. I see that the things I like are more numerous and more usual than the things you have listed. Yet, for some reason that I haven't grasped yet, you are concentrating on a small remark I said explaining why "Japanese people's love of nature" does not qualify as a reason to like Japan for me. I think you have deeply misunderstood my intent in my examples about Belgium. I usually compare Belgium to Kyushu or Shikoku because they they are the closest Japanese regions in size (although Kyushu is more populous and Shikoku less). Tokyo-to has the same population as Belgium, so it is also good for comparison. Japan overall has the same population density as Belgium, so if I want to compare the two, I divide everything by 13 in Japan and see it is matches Belgium in "per capita" figures. Does Japan have 13x more natural attractions than Belgium ? Does Japan get 13x more foreign tourists than Belgium (no, and in fact it get less !) ? Are there 13x more WWF members in Japan than in Belgium (incidentally I joined when I was 8) ? This is how my comparison work. Obviously only for quantitative comparison, never qualitative ones (I specify it because I am sure that someone will come and say that it is "lunacy" to ask whether Japanese food should be 13x better than Belgian one; but this has nothing to do with the country' size or population).

I find Japan to be fairly average as long as nature is concerned. Not ugly (except the parts that have been "concretised" and which are numerous outside Okinawa, Tohoku and Hokkaido), but not extremely beautiful either. My references as very beautiful countries for nature are France (esp. the South), Italy, Spain, the US West, South-East Australia, or South-Western China. Compared to that Japan is merely "average" (yet bigger than Italy). I also cannot get used to think of Okinawa or Hokkaido as representative of Japan, because they are only recent annexions and are very different from the true Japanese heartland. I do not count Congo as a part of Belgium, nor India as a part of the UK. Yet many European colonies remained longer part of the country that colonised them than Okinawa and Hokkaido have been part of Japan. When I think about the natural beauty of France, I never take French Guyana or Polynesia into account, and yet they are as much part of present-day France as Okinawa or Hokkaido are part of Japan. I think you get my point. You may not consent, but this is how my mind works.

I could write more examples of why I think the Japanese are, in average, less big fans of nature, but I would probably be wasting my time if you don't want to hear anything. How could someone who associate the Socialist Party for the Green Party ever be on the same wavelength as me ?

[craftsman]

How could someone who associate the Socialist Party for the Green Party ever be on the same wavelength as me ?

You obviously didn't read that right. Let me try again.


I was a guest of the socialist party (whose politics I do not necessarily agree with) and I was talking to social, economic and environmental groups. It was the last bit you were supposed to understand.


As for wavelength, is there anyone on this whole forum you think is on the same wavelength as you?

[Mikawa Ossan]

Why not split this discussion into a new thread?

[DoctorP]

Kerr's claim is not that all rivers have concrete banks on all their length, but at least at one point or another (even a few hundred metres). At the time he wrote the book, there was only one river in Japan that didn't have concrete anywhere from the beginning to the end (in Shikoku, if I remember well).

This is not what you were originally argueing! Nice to see you backtrack at times, but never admit that you could be wrong.
Next trip I make to mainland I will take some pictures for you to prove my stance.
As a matter of fact, if you get there before me, go visit my friends...I'm sure that they will show you what real rivers look like outside of the cities:
http://www.kappa-club.com/

[Philanti]

Maciamo, I have to say that your have made serious offence to Japanese people under a reasonable title, yea I dont think japanese had shown or do show so significantly more care to nature than other western countires. But when yu pick on linguistic differences to crudely argue for the lack of care of japanese people that in your opinion laying betrayed in light of lacking diversity in verbal interpretations. modern western languages undoubtfully are developed from greek, latin, and various tribal dialects that have been used by ancient European minorities, (I am not a expert on this so let me just mention it as a superfacially as a simple truth can be tell by an ordinary language speaker) you can see how many words english,french, spanish, german share no matter which is the original, so they are evolved from a very long multicultural confluence but Japanese language didnt enjoy cosmopolitan interchanges and influence from other cultures than Chinese untill near modernity. so It is clear you have made a unfair argue by chosing an historically advantaged stance. and however you remind your superfacially reasonable title of your topic, you are prejudiced and offensive in your following posts. Generally European languages are more culturally multifaceted, so English not only shows how you english people feel about thing but also records how others feels about the same things. So the powerful english does not speak for that english speakers care more powefully about things than others do.

Onthe other hand, a language having more alternative words for whatever, or clearer classifications for whatever, it only shows in literary attitude or scientific attitude of people to the objects, and it does only show higher education but not higher moral awareness or conscience.

[frmain]

I think the state of Japanese 'nature' would be far worse if they were forced to break their over-reliance on foreign meat and dairy. Currently Japan has an overwhelming appetite for meat, fish and dairy products (as well as having the highest tier-stacking levels of battery hens, currently at 18), also with no specific animal laws. If they were forced to keep up the same rate of meat and dairy consumption, they would have considerable problems.

I personally don't think that the country as a whole has much respect or knowledge of other species...perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get.

[pipokun]

I hear the words something like Mega Mac/teriyaki, food fighters or whatever.
Seeing a statistics on obesity, there are much time to catch up with the trend in other countries.
http://www.oecdobserver.org/images//1045.photo.jpg

About the sea food consumption, it must be the worldwide trend, but Japanese should realise that it is strange that we can eat 100 yen sushi.

I am really concerned about increase of eco-friendly farmers in the US or China.
They prefer corn to soy bean for bio fuel. "No corn for cars, more soy bean for people", I will defintely join the demonstration in the near future.