Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Inspired by the California vs. Italy thread, how about between California or Japan? This one is tough as they are completely different with their climates. California might have an edge with more variety/diversity in their landscapes, but the natural beauty of Japan is just stunningly beautiful.
Inspired by the California vs. Italy thread, how about between California or Japan? This one is tough as they are completely different with their climates. California might have an edge with more variety/diversity in their landscapes, but the natural beauty of Japan is just stunningly beautiful.
Does Japan has much of real natural beauty?
I’m under the impression it’s very molded by man, similar to the UK where as far as I know every tree in the rural areas was planted there by man. That image of a grassy field with rolling hills and a tree here and there isn’t the natural state of much of the UK, but rather it was created by man.
In California the hand of man has been great (to get an idea, most of the palm species seen there aren’t native to California and were taken there by man), but there is still true natural beauty created by nature.
There is no question that areas which has been greatly impacted by man can be very beautiful, but it’s one thing if that beauty is artificially created vs created by nature.
I’m under the impression it’s very molded by man, similar to the UK where as far as I know every tree in the rural areas was planted there by man. That image of a grassy field with rolling hills and a tree here and there isn’t the natural state of much of the UK, but rather it was created by man.
In California the hand of man has been great (to get an idea, most of the palm species seen there aren’t native to California and were taken there by man), but there is still true natural beauty created by nature.
There is no question that areas which has been greatly impacted by man can be very beautiful, but it’s one thing if that beauty is artificially created vs created by nature.
A lot of countries have their landscapes shaped by man, whether it be related to agriculture, timber or other such activities, however nature tends to adapt and brings it's own beauty with it, whether it be in relation to rolling hills and dales, lakes and pastures, woodland or coastlines.
Japan is most famous for it's cherry blossom, although it has some wonderful forests, mountains and coastline.
As for California it is also known for it's diverse and beautiful scenery, as well as it's giant redwood trees, Napa valley vineyards and fantastic coastline and beaches.
I like both countries scenery, and I also like the UK's scenery.
I’m under the impression it’s very molded by man, similar to the UK where as far as I know every tree in the rural areas was planted there by man. That image of a grassy field with rolling hills and a tree here and there isn’t the natural state of much of the UK, but rather it was created by man.
In California the hand of man has been great (to get an idea, most of the palm species seen there aren’t native to California and were taken there by man), but there is still true natural beauty created by nature.
There is no question that areas which has been greatly impacted by man can be very beautiful, but it’s one thing if that beauty is artificially created vs created by nature.
Japan's a lot more rugged than the UK in terms of its land due to volcanic activity pressing up some pretty high mountains that were never densely settled whereas the UK doesn't really have that. Japan also only has a very recent history of mass meat consumption so there was fairly little clearance of forests for grazing; there's still very little of it now as there's a lot of importing and their meat consumption is still pretty low by developed country standards.
I think it's arguable that California had overall a much higher degree of land alteration overall. The kind of suburban, car-based sprawl and low density usage means a lot of land was taken for pretty basic usage especially with the sprawling parking lots and big box stores in far reaching suburbs. The natural resource extraction in terms of mining, but most importantly petroleum, has denuded quite a few areas. The biggest change though is probably via irrigation changes mostly for agriculture. This has occurred in multiple parts of the state, but is probably most dramatic in the Central Valley. The largest lake west of the Mississippi was completely drained and that dramatically altered the landscape and biome and the water of that lake as well as surrounding areas where it was much wetter and there was a kind of morning dew that used to keep the areas around it quite lush. What waters that used to feed in that lake was diverted to scrublands and other places where those landscapes were also dramatically altered. Tulare Lake was just the largest of these, but multiple others like Owens Lake and much smaller lakes also disappeared. In addition to the disappearance of lakes, there was also the accidental creation of one by a fumbled irrigation project that poured a huge amount of the Colorado River waters into a desert basin and which we now know as the Salton Sea. Japan has certainly undergone a lot of change, but industrialized change of the landscape wasn't perhaps as heavy and there was a long established and intact historic, sentimental, and religious rationale for keeping much of it intact even as industrialization was underway. Japan was never a major agricultural exporter and never quite joined in on the car-based suburban sprawl to quite the same degree.
That being said, I think California traverses diffrent biomes / climates within its borders within shorter distances than Japan does because of California's multiple mountain ranges that are parallel to the coast and then go inland so the moderating effects of the ocean peter out rapidly.
That being said, I think California traverses different biomes / climates within its borders within shorter distances than Japan does because of California's multiple mountain ranges that are parallel to the coast and then go inland so the moderating effects of the ocean peter out rapidly.
I agree. I've traveled by train from the Tokyo area to Sapporo (over 500 miles, about the same as from Los Angeles to Redding), and while it's very beautiful, green, and scenic, with lots of mountains, trees, little rice fields, and flowing water, there was a certain sameness to most of it. If someone prefers thickly forested mountains and flowing water, they would prefer Japan. But California has more options, like the interior rolling hills and farmland (Central Valley) and deserts (Mojave, Joshua Tree).
Granted, I did not go farther south to the more tropical parts of Japan, which are not like anything in California. But believe me, the Tokyo area was far, far more unpleasantly humid in the summer than anywhere in California, and I daresay the farther south you go the worse that is.
Is this your pet obsession? Much of Japan is urban or suburban sprawl. Nothing you describe is unique to California, and you seem obsessed to shoehorn this type of talk into any discussion of the USA.
California is objectively more natural and less densely populated. This post of yours is absurd
Yea, water policy and trying to manage current and future needs versus some measure of natural preservation and even some forms of restoration in California is absolutely a pet obsession. I grew up around this, spent time in the Owens Lake dry bed / former Manzanaar camp, studies on the Salton Sea, and visited other places to study land use policy including Japan because California can be even better than it is. What's your interest in this besides compulsively making new accounts in your paranoia over the US being attacked online?
You likely know very little about California and probably have never lived there. The suburban sprawl that takes up a massive amount of land is not unique to California and California is actually remarkably better than most other states on this count, but somewhat unique for the US is how much of the wetlands and lakes have been drained for agriculture which is good in terms of California being one of the most productive farmland in the US and world. It's hard to have it both ways though, so that also means a massive amount of the land has been changed over for and due to this. You likely don't know any of this history, because you're so idiotically stuck on making everything about the US versus any other country that you likely don't know much about the actual history of the US. This is all you have and this unfortunately how it's going to remain for you.
It’s a clear win for California based off any reasonable criteria.
Japan has precious few truly wild areas and what it does have is pretty standard. This is as absurd as saying the UK is by far more naturally beautiful than New Zealand because Scotland is kind of pretty.
Japan is good for lush forests and hills and that’s about it.
The thread has nothing to do with the UK, and both the UK and NZ are both beautiful countries.
I have noticed in other threads that you seem to have some problem with the UK, and you seem to have a similarity to previous banned accounts in this respect.
As for this thread it's about California and Japan, and both are beautiful parts of the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
