the idea that detrimental environments can contribute towards violent events or situations between human beings is nothing new. although it is argued in a pantheist sense (not religious) that the environment or architecture can potentially consists of elements that can be on a par or akin to adverse behaviour of persons. whilst the environment does not exist consciously in the same way as a sentient human it does possess qualities, form and properties that are viewed as shaping the world around it.

in this context the understanding goes further in describing adverse environments and architecture as not only potentially consisting of workloads or demands but pathogens or prodromals (that which came before), almost as if containing hostile pre-symptoms and that which causes eventual toxicity towards persons. the use of terms such as pathogens and prodromals is purposeful not only in describing what came before adverse events and situations but how the nature of the environment or architecture got to be the way that it is.  by understanding how environment and architecture come in to being is to identify both strength and weakness, which is perhaps the information needed to help us avoid or traverse likely adverse situations and places.

in earnest there may even be a deficit in defining human like aspects towards adverse environments or surroundings, when we could argue behaviour is no different to object properties, form and qualities. this is in no way to demean what it is to be human but to question how factors of violence may go beyond traditional dualistic notions of what is to be considered  importantly human and what is non-human. whilst Taoism can be full of contrasting thoughts, perceptions of dualism, physicalism, ideas and thinking it arguably can also help identify ways of crossing divides to universally understand or hint at new directions to how the world around us might just work better.