From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Is Japan crowded?
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:57:03 GMT

In article <Bz2zAs.3qs@ncifcrf.gov> masuda@fcs280b.ncifcrf.gov (Michiaki Masuda) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.162152.25329@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:
>>miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.) writes:
>>
>.....
>>>Japan is a mountainous country, and some nonmountainous parts of it are
>>>rather dubiously habitable by the standards of much of the world.  I've
>>
>>	I expected this "mountainous terrain" stuff.  Anyone visited
>>	Switzerland or San Francisco?  Both demonstrate how easy it
>>	is to build on hills.
>
>     This is probably unrelated to the point that others are trying to
>make. The point is that the statistical data of the population density
>that you referred to does not reflect the actual situation in Japan.
>That Japanese are potentially capable of living all over their country
>does not mean that Japanese ARE living all over the country.


I believe Mr Goldman is responding to the direct statment above: that much
of Japan is essentially uninhabitable due to the 'mountainous' terrain.

>>       Further, rural areas of Japan are actually losing
>>	population, which is to be expected, but clearly demonstrates that
>>	habitability is not the sole reason for unequal population
>>	distribution.

>     This clearly states that more and more Japanese are living in a
>crowded environment.

However, Japan is not unique in this. This is a phenomenon common to the 
industrialized world. The US has been losing rural population for some time.

>>       Parts of the US are
>>	virtually devoid of people so some areas are more crowded than
>>	Japan.  E.g., New Jersey, where the southern half is largely
>>	farming (80% of US canned tomatoes come from NJ).  Yet, no
>>	one makes weird claims that that is why New Jerseyites are
>>	"paranoid" which was the statement I was responding to.
>
>     First, weren't you the one who claimed in the original post that the 
>comparison between the US and Japan is void because the US is rather an 
>extreme example?
>
>     Second, as several netters pointed out, the statistical numbers that
>you are using are not necessarily reflecting the actual crowdedness, and
>you cannot measure the risk factor of "paranoid" with these numbers.
>
>     Third, N.J. has fourty-nine other states within the same country
>while Japan has only Japan in itself. This difference should have at 
>least some psychological effect.

??? Above, you claim that since Japan is losing rural population, it is, in
effect, more crowded. Now you claim that since the US has other, less crowded
areas, this has a "psychological effect" on Americans. Why does this not have
a "psychological effect" on Japanese?

>>>Another neglected factor is the height of residential structures.  New York
>>>City has the same density as Tokyo, but most of Tokyo is maybe 2 stories
>>>tall, on average.  Part of this is earthquake fears, I'm sure.  Maybe
>>>government policies (using earthquake fears as a pretext) are another
>>>part of the story.
>>
>>	I was in Tokyo a few days ago, and I saw plenty of high rise
>>	condos and office buildings.
>
>    Turner-san's comment was on the residential structures. Therefore,
>the comparison of office buildings is out of context.

Condos ARE residential structures.
      
>>>>	Country		Pop. Density/(Square Mile)
>>>>	(State)
>>>>	-------		-----------
>>>>	Bangladesh	1,740		/* very flat, very rich farmland */
>>>>	Taiwan		1,347		/* middle-class urban refugee camp */
>>>>	Netherlands	1,095		/* BOTH of the above */
>>>	...
>>>>	Japan		  822  <----	/* but what about just Honshu? */
>>
>>	Why not look at just New Jersey, or "just" the Boston-NY-DC strip
>>	along the US east coast.
>
>    Once again, how valid is the comparison between the US and Japan?

I believe this is comparing Japan to the rest of the world.

>>       Why not look at only the non-farmed
>>	areas of Holland.
>
>    I've never been to Holland. I don't know many Dutch people, either. Maybe,
>they are more paranoid than Japanese?

But how can this be? If the REASON the Japanese are so friendly is BECAUSE 
of its crowdedness, then the Dutch should be even friendlier, should they not?

>>	Why did you leave out my data for Brooklyn?  It has few high-
>>	rises and is mostly homes and 2-4 story apartements.  I'll give it
>>	again:
>>
>>	  Brooklyn	 31,871
>
>    Uh, the US-Japan comparison again...
>
>    How large is the total population of Brooklyn? What impact does the
>crowdedness of Brooklyn have to the entire US?
>
>>	Of course Tokyo is tight.  So is NYC.  The point is no one makes
>>	claims that because NYC is crowded, that's why _Americans_ are
>>	"paranoid", or "so polite", or whatever attribute the Japanese
>>	are supposed to have to be different.
>
>    This is also the US-Japan thing.

Right. Brooklyn is more crowded than Tokyo. If the original "Japan is such a
polite country BECAUSE it is so crowded" stuff is to have any merit, then
Brooklyn must have the friendliest people in the world (or at least, lots of
very friendly, polite people).
 
>>       I'm not claiming Japan isn't crowded,
>
>    Then, you might want to correct your comment that "Japan is a crowded
>tiny island" is a myth in your original posting.

Uh, the 'myth' was that BECAUSE Japan is crowded, its people are so polite.
There is nothing to correct.

>>       and the rest of us needn't
>>	accept their parochial little self-image on face value.  Also,
>>	much of their self-image comes from contact with Americans who
>>	are the weird ones, but are too parochial too know it. and so
>>	are free and easy with their generalizations.
>
>     Yeah, seems like it. You made a big generalization above.

Perhaps you should re-read Mr Goldman's original post. 

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - Oh come on! You didn't think I was serious, did you?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan