As anyone with an iota of awareness and no partisan ax to grind must surely know by now, this planet's nature is in danger of being mostly destroyed within the next century, with catastrophic consequences for human life.

However, as I have worked more and more over the years to introduce nature to my students and other audiences, I have realized that there is a significant difference between the English word "nature" (and its equivalents in all those other European languages that are related through their roots or adaptations) and the Japanese word "shizen." This difference can easily lead to an ecologically dangerous misunderstanding between Japanese speakers and those thinking about nature in the way it is understood throughout the Western world.

The urgency of this problem of linguistic misunderstanding became acutely focused for me during a recent symposium on the Oki Islands of Shimane Prefecture in the Sea of Japan, where I was one of three guest speakers. Using the Japanese word "shizen," I realized quickly that my audience was "hearing" things I had not intended to say and was reacting in ways that seemed to me to be against "nature" -- exploitative and nonsustainable.

This is and was because the English word "nature" refers to those things that are natural; i.e., unaffected in their origins by anything "invented," "created" or "manipulated" by humans. Nature existed many billions of years before Homo sapiens first appeared and began to vastly alter this planet. With the appearance of humans, the alteration of nature began, increasing in intensity with human advances in technology, and with developments in such primary industries as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and mining that came thick and fast after the agricultural revolution.

True, wild nature -- with its immensely important biological diversity -- survives, to a limited degree, on our planet today, but it is being destroyed at an ever-increasing and alarming rate -- much of it in the name of protecting or "developing" shizen.

Buddhist influence

But, what about "shizen?" The Japanese concept of shizen has existed for a long time, but was probably, to a large degree, molded into its present meaning some 1,000 years ago during the late Heian and early Kamakura periods, under the influence of Zen Buddhism. Raw, untouched "nature" was perceived as "crude," as something a bit frightening and inferior to what could be created by the cultured human mind, such as Japanese gardens, bonsai, etc.

Consequently, although the Japanese concept of shizen allows for asthetically pleasing human impacts, it also leaves room for -- indeed includes -- such environmentally invasive human creations as golf courses, ski slopes and marinas, to name just a few. Taken to what I consider an inconceivable limit, road cuts, with concrete walls painted green, are considered "in harmony with shizen."

The Oki Islands are, indeed, beautiful, but I was shocked by the absence of "nature" after being told of the abundance of "shizen." Where lush forests formerly covered mountain slopes, bordering immense cliffs and spectacular scenic panoramas, we now find vast pastures on bald mountain slopes, inhabited by large herds of cows and horses, doomed to die to supply beef steak and horse sashimi from Matsushima and Kobe to Kumamoto and beyond. These pasture lands are perceived by Japanese as "shizen," but few Westerners would think of them as representing "nature."

In contrast, the Oki Islands' now-endangered goshawks, Japanese buzzards, ospreys and Japanese wood pigeons; the seriously endangered Japanese night herons, raccoon dogs and red foxes; and the magnificent forests and wild flowers that flourished in pre-human times were true "nature" in the Western sense of the word -- but are depressingly rare there today.

But is that a problem? After all, what good to humankind is a racoon dog or a wood pigeon?

The answer here is related to a major environmental problem known as "diminishing biological diversity." It is also related to understanding (or misunderstanding) the original meaning of the now popular term "ecotourism."

Often, if not usually, Japanese and Westerners (as well as Southeast Asians, South Asians and many others) are once again here perceiving somewhat different things. For example, "ecotourism" that focuses on herds of cattle in scenic green landscapes, is not ecotourism in the Western mind.

For the record, the term was first conceived and explained by the Mexican bird scientist Hector Cabillas, acting in an International Union of Nature Conservation capacity more than a decade ago. If ecotourism is designed to sustain "nature," as originally intended by Dr. Cabillas, then the concept of "shizen" must be narrowed to fit the concept of ecotourism.

Sterile habitats

More important, the subject of biological diversity must be addressed in a way that recognizes the differences between "shizen" and "nature." For example, natural forests in many parts of Japan have been replaced with forests of Japanese cedar, which are wonderfully green and beautiful. However, cedar forests are relatively sterile habitats for birds, insects and other organisms that require species-rich, biologically diverse habitats. Such forests may represent a pleasing "shizen" scene, but rather than representing "nature," these fast-growing trees are grown for lumber, are not natural and thus are not in harmony with the English word "nature."

Because protecting "biodiversity" depends on protecting "nature," which is not necessarily related to "shizen," the way the two words are perceived in the different cultures is of importance to global conservation.