The fact that every Japanese would have had experienced earthquakes and tsunamis in their lifetimes forges an innate sense of 無常 or uncertainty, transience or mutability of life in the Japanese. This was observed by physicist Torahiko Terada who had experienced the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, according to Seiichi Takeuchi, Professor of Ethics at Tokyo University. For Terada, in the past, the idea that nature was essentially immense and unstoppable had been part of the Japanese psyche. Nature was a force to be acknowledged. You learn to live with nature instead of trying to conquer it.

It appeared in language, as the Japanese in the past when something or some event occurred, would say 自然 (its only natural) instead of 万一 (what if). 辛/shiawase (meaning to be happy or delighted these days) happened when there was coordination of one’s actions with other larger natural forces that were beyond your control.
All things happened naturally, inevitably, almost fatalistically, instead of something that occurred out of the blue, something which you rue you could not control. Such a fundamental view of nature would undergird how architects think about what architecture can or cannot do. Architecture is more akin to something that is a part of the natural occurrence of things, not to mention a part of the environment around us.

Where there is a lack of evidence of the great forces of nature, or where there is a denial of the uncontrollability of nature, your psyche tends to be different. “Controlling the environment”, “make things happen”, “just do it!”, “because we can!”, are expressions that flow forth. If it gets too hot, use air-conditioning. If you want a green city, plant instant trees. If you don’t want that hill, flatten it. If you want more land, reclaim the sea. If you wish to control flash floods, widen the drains. What kind of thinking about architecture would emerge out of such a view of the manipulability of nature?