> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph B. Reid)
> Subject: [USMA:11197] Re: Deprecated hectare
>
> Further to the above, do you think you can persuade a farmer who has a
> quarter section to say that he has a farm of 647 000 m2?
Why not (or, at least, "why not TRY") to persuade him?
And if the only argument is that 647 000 is too big a number, then
use 0.647 km2. I realize that some people have an aversion to very large
numbers, but I think that aversion is exaggerated.
Of course, I realize that some people don't like to use decimal fractions
either. But I think that fact is also over-emphasized. I don't think the
aversion is that great. (And if it is, then
try 64.7 % of a square kilometre.)
The hectare in this situation is a crutch for those who adamantly refuse to
recognize the ease with which our number system is capable of registering
both large and small numbers. The invention and use of a special new unit
every time someone finds the existing units a bit "inconvenient" (too big or
too small) is exactly what led to the hodge podge of units in the Olde
English system.
I don't doubt that we will find it will continue to be done in a few cases
(hectare and litre are the two most likely but kilowatt-hour and metric
tonne are two others that may survive). But i don't have to like it and I
certainly don't think we should promote it. At least offer the reasonable
(and fully SI) alternatives and encourage people to consider them instead of
the odd special units.
