This was written last January, but for some reason, I never posted it. Just as the timing is out-of-sync, so goes my mind. Presently in "technical" mode, it was a challenge to edit. So I apologize in advance for any inconsistencies in reasoning.
---
So after racking up something like 12,000 air miles spewing CO2 into the stratosphere in order to make a recreational excursion to Japan, I've returned home to America with the sudden realization of just how much energy we waste. Still, I walked into my 42F home (I had lowered the thermostat when I left) and the first thing I did was turn my American-style central heat up to its "Toasty Gaijin" setting. Yeah, I'm an American. And the last three weeks of sleeping in a thick hoodie in 38F rooms warmed only by a heated floor under a thin futon had me dreaming of luxuriously warm forced-air oozing from every vent in my American-sized Fortress-of-Solitude.
While in Japan, my good friend, Yuki, did a great deal of driving in her Japanese-sized, 6-passenger (but only able to carry five humans according to Japanese law), Toyota mini-SUV ("micro" by American standards). As much as I enjoy riding the Shinkansen (bullet trains), lugging ski gear up to Zao and Nozawa Onsens made driving an option rather less likely to result in breaking Public Transportation Rule-of-Etiquette number 16 ("Do it in the mountains!"). However, it bothered me greatly that my partner was filling up at gasoline stations with six-dollar-plus per gallon fuel, and so on my last day there I tried to give her 20,000 yen (about $250).
Yuki stared at the money, evidently confused despite my best attempts to explain that I was only trying to reimburse her for some what she must have blown at all of those gas stations. Finally, she explained to me that her car only had a forty-liter (10-gallon tank), that she usually filled it only half-way to save weight for going up hills (and as an excuse to use the toilet and buy snacks), and that at her car's gas mileage she could drive me almost half way back to the US on what I had handed her! Slightly embarrassed at my American concept of fuel economy, I accepted the return of one of the banknotes, most of its worth later going into the tank of my self-propelled Howitzer for the drive home from the airport.
While in Tokyo (as in most Japanese urban areas), there wasn't much need for a car though. Mass transportation is an integral part of the infrastructure for the prefecture's 13-million or so residents, all of whom can apparently be packed onto just three trains. A constant stream connect every ward, and swarms of buses course between outlying areas and their nearest rail stations. From there, it's simply a matter of trying to decipher the Gordian-knot of rail lines, interchanges and stations. This is perhaps one of the reasons that Japanese feel free to drink so much, especially after work.
But this also explains much about how the Japanese manage to power an ultra-modern nation on half of the per-capita energy consumed by Americans while still blasting 160 decibel rock-music through the nights in a vast network of strobe-lit secret underground nightclubs. Put simply, they are willing to suffer -- cramped apartments, gutless cars, frigid nights, packed commuter trains, rain-soaked bus stops, ringing ears... And if that's the case, we Americans are doomed (although we probably won't notice the end when it happens).
Perhaps it's a Buddhist thing for the Japanese, suffering being the First Noble Truth. We Americans, on the other hand, prefer to put off the suffering part for as long as possible, and then simply drown it out with excess. However, unlike that Japanese "salaryman" passed-out across the reserved seating of a late-night commuter-train, we don't break Public Transportation Rule-of-Etiquette number 2 ("Do it at home!"). Now if could just get my hot tub powered up to Japanese onsen temperature...
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 22
I guess it's just whatever we become accustomed to expecting as the norm, at least in terms of material "comforts." Maybe suffering is a relative phenomenon. At any rate, I'm already planning next year's ski trip. Pocket warmers are cheap.
Ann, Very late one night in Tokyo, I went to get a nightcap latte from a Starbucks. I ordered a, "Big one, please." The young barista pulled out the equivalent of an American "Tall." (Center one in this photo.)
"Is there a bigger one?" I asked. At this point, I think my accent gave me away. He gave me a funny look, disappeared around back, and then returned with "Grande" and "Venti" cups (at that time, not on the Japanese menu).
"Eh! Kore wa, kudasai." I pointed at the big 20 oz. The wide-eyed look from the young man behind the counter expressed something between awe and disbelief. (And American Starbucks' now have a 30 oz.)
Excess, perhaps. I suppose Americans just suffer differently.
When we moved to Pittsburgh, I discovered that a house which I (the New Yorker) and my European wife thought was on the big side, because it contained 3 bedrooms and a basement, attic etc. was considered to be so small, that it was fit only for a single person.
So why is this? I have thought about it a lot. One thing is that Americans themselves are huge. Most Americans have German heritage, and Germans are the largest people on the planet (with some notable exceptions, like Samoa and parts of Africa). Germans themselves are not that big, because their diet is European. But if you take a hard working German farmer, and feed him an unlimited diet, he will grow to well over 6 feet and weigh well over 250 pounds.
Add in the Scandinavian, Scottish and other northern Europeans, and you have a very large built population.
Second of all, the country is enormous. Efficient public transport doesnt work well in rural Texas, when its 20 miles between houses and malls. Only the East Coast megalopolis is amenable to rapid trains, and energy savings. And even here, the distance from Washington to Boston is an 8 hour trip by car or train, which in Europe can take you from Italy to Denmark, or England to Poland.
We could do a lot better despite all of this. I think we dont, because we dont have to. Yet. And also its habit forming, all of this space and room and luxury.
BUT, there is also a fundamental error here. While some of us are living large (literally) and well, an awful lot of others (including a number of Gatherites) are not at all. The real contrast between the US and Europe and Asia is the huge disparity in suffering and contentment among the American population, compared to the others. Italians, Germans, Japanese, English, etc. do have their fabulously wealthy 1%, but they dont have the same extent of poverty that we have here. And that to me, is the major issue.
"Yuki" (snow) is actually a very old friend, and my partner in an apartment at the edge of Tokyo. It works well for both of us, giving me a place to stay when I'm in Japan and allowing her to live in relatively spacious accommodations.
That said, she came to visit me in the US a few years back. Even though it wasn't her first time in the country, I recall her looking at my little (100 square foot) kitchen with that "bigger than life!" expression Ann mentioned. Of course, the whole Tokyo apartment is only about four times the size, and its kitchen consists of a counter along one side of a room.
Why the difference? Obviously, in a country with half the population of the US living in an area the size of California, space is at a premium. But the issue is also exaggerated by the Japanese decision to preserve their wilderness, and the societal preference for living in cities (which don't suffer from many of the social and structural problems associated with American urban environments).
As for physical stature, younger Japanese men and women are also averaging much taller (though maybe not to "strapping Teutonic" standards). I think some older Japanese apartments and small homes are starting to need low-clearance warnings.
Culture shock -- I understand completely. Even a few weeks in Japan requires a readjustment. Two-years in Thailand (in the mountains near Burma for awhile), and about six-months in Cambodia required something more like therapy.
Since I was living on the cheap at the time, my most impressive place (in ChiangMai) was only about the size of my bedroom here, and the cooking area was outside. It shared a little yard with two other small houses and a row of travelers' rooms, all clustered behind a wall like a little neighborhood. Transportation was by motorcycle or "songthaew." It definitely wasn't the "Big American" lifestyle, but it certainly wasn't uncomfortable either.
Which brings up that last issue -- the relative impact of poverty in the US. It's not just the gap in wealth, but the difference in how much wealth it takes to live in an acceptable condition. America has become a place where a person without significant financial resources can actually hit bottom. And that is a major issue.
Thanks for sharing with Gather’s Luminous Writers & Artists.
I learned from this that in our daily struggle to keep up with modern life, reducing our impact on nature generally loses to other concerns. My next project is to insulate our attic in order to reduce our use of electricity in the winter.
Actually, I spend a lot of the summer riding a motorcycle that gets about 40mpg, which sounds impressive to people who drive artillery pieces. But the huge leaps in automotive fuel efficiency are quickly causing two-wheel gas-saving to become something of an anachronism. As for the "not rich" part, not having to fuel a black-hole can make a big difference in the longer-term.
Couldn't have said it better!
Regarding walking, my travel observations suggest an inverse-correlation between waistlines and distance-walked by ordinary people in a given society.
Larger spaces and larger energy use are two different phenomena, I think. Social mobility in the US, which was prompted by Teddy Roosevelt's policies (he coined the phrase "living wage"), Henry Ford's industrial innovation and the role of unions led to a consumer society where upward mobility meant going larger, in car and home.
After WWII, though, innovation led to centers of technology and industrial design outside the US. For example, W. Edwards Deming's principles of quality control and improvement were taken more seriously in postwar Japan than in the US. The immense scale and scope of the US public infrastructure, as Sy points out, coupled with the strong US tradition of private enterprise control of the transportation and energy sectors, have impeded system-wide progress in high-speed rail or modernization of the US power grid and power generation.
The political climate in the US too often treats initiatives such as safety and energy efficiency standards as "government interference," which leads to stagnation in some sectors. While I do think that culture plays a part in the success of government-industry cooperation, history and political gamesmanship help to explain the situation.
All the same, I'm inclined to agree with your first sentence. The world is a bigger place itself, more crowded, more competitive, more demanding. Unquestioned consumption has to be replaced by more reasonable expectations if it's not simply going to amount to a fight over the scraps.
As for obesity -- it's time for an evening run.
IMO, America rather big flat areas where horizon seems out of reach, long straight roads, extreme temperature changes (New York is not America!), many large areas where no one can see any living soul, seems to justify the need of cheaper energy, large comfortable 6/8-cyl. cars, effective but CO2 consumer communications but, above all, even if it is only for trade reasons, people keep smiling, keep more or less concerned by the neighbors.
Europe is tiny, tiny roads, tiny homes or better said another way to take profit of the available sq. ft. but, overall, the sight is limited by hills , mountains, where rivers decide of a border, where religion is far less "parishing" than in America, where the lack of private communication implied the governments to help it creating nets of very good ones and competing with private ones, even as expensive: private transportation compared to public one implies - depending the countries but in Western world - becomes specifically cheaper for more than 2 people traveling together as public transportation is effective but expensive.
In America, to the exception some cities, public communication are lousy, imply long waits, etc. The government invested in roads and, therefore, in the automotive industry.Practically, America was moving with aircrafts far earlier than Europe moving with cars.
Europe is used to wars for religion reasons (as partially the 1936 Spanish Civil war), for borders (as the field of my neighbor is better than mine), for mining reasons and industry reasons including dialects which may vary from place to place and which generates racisms.
Taxes are far more higher than in America - direct taxes are usually a little bit higher than in the States and the scale goes from ab. a minimum of 1/8th per cent up to over 99% (Sweden) for very rich people with an average of ab. 18-35% as personal taxes, 25% for corporations. All of them after social deductions as health care premiums, retirement premiums, transportation expenses, even food expenses when out of the residence area, child care expenses, etc.
Building fields are very expensive this why kitchens are small, shared by many bed rooms and everything is tiny. This being added to nationalisms, to the fear of the neighbor, to the fear of higher taxes and less investments.
But where the large difference remains is in education far more than public of private communications. I mean the basic education up to the College or University, is far more "sharp" in Europe, Japan and China than in America. Somehow less nationalist (history) far more deeper as it goes far beyond Mesopotamian civilizations and shows evolution of the several concepts, mythology included. At the least 3 different languages are taught to 10 years old and over pupils.
History, as always, is often biased according to more recent events ...
Smaller-sized homes, roads, etc... that's the same as in Japan. However, there are some larger, older homes in the countryside. Some families own property from times when resources weren't so scarce. Likewise, we have friends in northern Italy who live in a huge, old family home.
In Thailand, there is more variation. Two friends in the Thai countryside live in homes much larger than my own here in the western US. The resources (space, timber...) are still available there. So to some extent, I think "bigness" can be an expression of living in the "right time" to be able to exploit the resources of a location.
Taxes and infrastructure (from transportation and communications to health care and education), these are interesting factors with regard to "bigness." I guess I could consider the Japanese as having big trains or big health-care. Conversely, however, they've somehow kept taxes slightly below America's (excepting taxation on luxuries).
What I mean is that, having travel a lot I have been living in haciendas as large as one third of whole Switzerland and in towns as crowded as Tokyo. (BTW, I had some Japanese close direct relatives, as close as my American family is).
If one is isolated in a huge area, where communications are in some way scarce, people use to hold guns to protect themselves against wild life or any kind of pistoleros ... because no authority can be of help within a short delay.
But if you are in any somehow crowded area, holding a gun becomes far more tricky and shows fears not being raised by wild life. The reason is now mainly psychological.
As far as taxes and infrastructures, health care and education are concerned, the main difference is that between most developed countries and America is, at the end of the day, based on "energy". America is a civilization based on "OIL", while the other countries understood and practiced since long ago a civilization based on "personal productivity", if I may say so, recovering as much waste as possible.
Common transportation enters into such a philosophy. IMO, America's energy was and is still based on exploitation of a "God's gift"; while in many other countries it is based on "Human productivity". Within such a philosophy, how can someone tax a "God's gift"?
UC Berkely researchers just recently calculated that the Net now consumes 2% of the world's energy. Add in the energy for all of the hardware and infrastructure, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a double-digit number. Like the energy investment in the human brain, there's a lot more going on behind the scenes to keep things working.
Petroleum was originally exploited due to its relative cost-effectiveness. Time has exposed some hidden costs associated with oil, but we have become stuck with machines (and large economic institutions) that need oil to operate. Corporations don't want to give up their cash-cow, and the general population doesn't want to spend the money on new machinery and infrastructure. The result is a less cost-competitive and not necessarily ideal system of energy-production that requires a great deal of government (taxpayer) support to remain a first-choice in a supposedly modern country.
I'm not much of a conspiracy-theorist (my personal experience with a large corporation was that its collective-intelligence was insufficient to actually contrive anything feasible), but there unquestionably exists a big-money motivation that is fundamental to the way American government works. You can see this right now in all of the nutty corporate patent, copyright, and "Net Neutrality" absurdities. It's not so much the populist rhetoric of "God's gift" as the corporate impetus that "God forbid" anything should change. So "BIG" will probably stay in the American cultural vernacular for awhile longer, at least relative to corporations that "can't" fail.
"Guns" -- you'll have to wait for my next post.
For unknown (LOL) reasons (LOL again) we had to face healthy deaf commissions.
I am now 81 so I just keep watching and waiting (reLOL).