On Mon, 14 May 2001 10:23:23
Gregory Peterson wrote:
>A recent letter sent to me by a retired couple in Canada.
>
>greg
>
Thanks, Greg, for sharing this with us. However, I'd like to also share a response to
this couple as below - after '**', if you will please. Thanks. (observations in
parentheses are not "part" of my answer, they are aside statements addressed to the
list)
Dear Sir,
Thank you for bringing to my attention, your efforts to have metric
conversion mandatory, I had no idea there was a movement on in this regard.
My husband and I are seniors and have a difficult time converting
to metric measures. We have picked up a little, by osmosis over
time.
** Dear Ma'am,
While we do sympathize with you concerning your troubles with metric, we honestly and
sincerely find it quite difficult to believe that *anyone* actually would have as much
difficulty with adjusting to metric measures as you've indicated your case might be.
However, by the tone of your answer we probably know why this appears to be so in your
particular case.
You talk about "converting" to metric measures most probably meaning that you may have
been trying to learn metric all these years by "converting" metric measures back to
"familiar territory". That's perhaps the source of the problem right there! Our
experience shows, and is corroborated by results, that by and large one of the major
difficulties for people to adjust, *regardless of age*, is the fact that they keep
trying to relate to metric measurements based on their familiar frames of reference.
Most experts on this issue firmly believe that this is arguably the single biggest
barrier for people to "switch" - or accept change, and one of the major causes for
people to reject the metric system altogether. Ma'am, such efforts and manner to deal
with this issue can be easily shown to actually be quite counterproductive and thus
are NOT recommended. Please allow us to show this to you by a simple metaphorical
association.
The above, trying to learn metric based on conversions to imperial units, is akin to
someone learning a language by translating words, sentences, expressions in the new
language back to our familiar English all the time while "practicing" the new tongue.
It's a well-known fact now that such tactics to learn a new language simply does NOT
work and is never taught by any reputable language teacher anymore nowadays. The
proper way of learning a new tongue is to *create a new mindset*! The same goes for
learning metric. While a system of units is not in the domain of arts, but science,
it does have elements of its being a "language" as far as learning is concerned, which
makes this example a proper one to use to draw the point home.
Therefore, please allow us to recommend that you change your approach to learning the
SI system - actually this is the official name for the modern metric system - by
adopting the tried-tested-and-trued methodology of creating a new mindset. We're very
confident that if you and your husband do it this way you will certainly find no
trouble whatsoever learning this new... "skill", and again we repeat, *regardless of
your age and personal abilities*. If people could learn imperial at school
successfully, and this appears to be your case, then we have no reason to believe why
you wouldn't be able to also with regards to learning metric. Our experience shows
that the majority of those who do it this way ends up actually claiming how easy and
better it is to operate in metric as compared to imperial. Evidently, provided they
keep an open mind about it and do not allow themselves to be influenced by
preconceived ideas! **
If metric was arbitrarily shoved down our throats with mandatory
laws, we would find it very difficult indeed. I realize the children
of today find metric measure relatively easy since they were taught
that system in school, we were taught imperial measures.
** At this point, please allow us to reinforce and clarify your use of "easy" above.
Children do not find metric 'relatively easy' BECAUSE they are taught 'that system in
school', they actually do so because the SI system ITSELF is actually undeniably easy
to learn. How can one not agree with this when metric is, among many other things,
1) coherent - one unit ONLY per physical quantity, like the meter for length, watt for
power, joule for energy, etc. No need for several different units depending on size
and application, like the inch, foot, yard, mile, fathom, furlongs, etc... And here
an observation is in order. A kilometer, a centimeter, a millimeter, and the likes
are *actually* STILL the meter! Just like cents in our currency are STILL dollars!!!
The use of prefixes is only meant to cut down on zeros and decimal points so as to
facilitate the reporting and manipulation of the value of the measurement. By the
way, isn't this how they do it also in the computer industry? And we would
respectfully ask you, what would you rather work with:
'1 000 000 000 bytes', or simply '1 gigabyte'? Besides, don't we already have similar
expressions in our currency, such as 'megabucks', and the likes?
2) requires no conversion factors whatsoever
3) is a pure decimal system - no clumsy, complicated fractions to deal with
4) internationally used and understood all around this planet of ours
5) supported by ALL governments, industries, and scientific community around the world
6) being a simpler system it would render operations much less susceptible to
potentially costly mistakes
7) being a simpler system it requires much less time and effort for mathematical
manipulations and learning
And here another observation is in order, a one that perhaps you may not be aware of,
that the SI system is even used to define imperial measurements themselves! I.e.
imperial measurements no longer exist *by themselves*, alone, as they are ALL defined
in terms of metric standards. In other words, what is an inch, for example? It is
*defined* AS 0.0254 meters! So, alas, if even the imperial units themselves are
defined as some metric values, why not use the real thing, the metric units themselves
directly?! If measuring instruments are all calibrated against metric standards why
not use such standards directly? **
Why the
hurry, give us time to absorb this. You only have to wait another
20 years or so and all of us that were taught the imperial measure
will be long gone, and you can have your way.
** Ma'am, there are at least two difficulties with the above. First, that it can be
demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that people *can* learn metric in as little as
15 minutes and become completely familiar with it with just a few days' practice, if
done properly. Second, why should progress be halted and/or delayed unnecessarily,
when, as we claimed above, it does not necessarily have to be that way?
Please, understand that this is not a matter of 'having our way', as you put it,
versus 'your way', but a matter of providing society with the tools they need to
continue fostering and bringing prosperity and more progress to all society by making
things more efficient, simpler and easier to do. People have more important things to
do in life than to have to spend the additional unnecessary extra time and resources
it requires to continue operating in an 'imperial' environment - there will be more on
this below. **
We feel, I suppose, the opposite to your views. Did we really need
to convert to metric at all? Going back to imperial now, would
be as costly as metric was to bring in, I am not suggesting that.
** And we would like to answer your question above, by unequivocally saying, yes, we
DID need to 'convert to metric' after all. Why? There are just too many reasons for
it, but let us provide you with the most important one.
Economics! Yes, unlike many would have you believe it, it does cost *more* to operate
in imperial *in the long run* than to do so in metric. Many would say that with the
advent of computers and technology this requirement has largely been mitigated.
However, nothing could be farther from the truth. Why? Because people still require
to do *extensive manual* manipulations here and there, and we're not talking about
ordinary citizens, only, but mostly those that are required to use the system the
most, industry workers in general. Technology will never offer effective means for
people to avoid this - manual manipulations - unfortunately. It suffices for one to
visit a construction site to witness for him or herself what we mean.
And since labor is usually one of the largest cost factors in any business enterprise
anywhere, it should not be difficult to conclude how important it would be for them to
use a tool that would save them time in the job, wouldn't you say? Therefore, is it
any surprise, really, that the overwhelming majority of countries around the world
decided to go about this via imposing legislation to that effect - as much as nearly
all of us 'hate' to 'be told' what to do? **
In our country we cannot afford to change major business practices
at this time in our history. The U.S. realized the tremendous cost
to converting to metric measure and backed out of the agreement.
** Actually, Ma'am, it's the other way around! *No* country can afford NOT to change
'major business practices' into metric. It's not that the US 'realized the tremendous
cost to converting to metric measure' that has been the problem, but rather the
misguided opposition by some members of society who, while perhaps as sincerely and
honestly as they might be, have unfortunately missed the actual tremendous benefits it
would entail society to switch and decided to do any and every thing, at any cost, to
stop progress in that direction!!!
While it may be true that there could be large *initial* investments in such
undertaking, they can, first, largely be mitigated by proper strategic plans of
action, such as making the change during regular maintenance schedules in some cases,
for instance, and, second, they would be largely compensated by the long run benefits
of running a business in a much more efficient environment.
In brief, it goes like this, one spends, say, a million dollars to switch, while one
would be saving, say, 50, 100 thousand *every year* as a result of having adopted a
better system. It shouldn't be too difficult to see that in the end one would be
ahead in this game after all after just a few years!
At this point you may be thinking, well, if this is actually so why aren't we seeing
more businesses switching and even witnessing some going back in the other direction?
And the answer is, because of the high risk of the loss of market share, as this would
place businesses on unequal footing with the others *marketwise*. That's when
governments are called in and asked to step in, not with the intention to 'shove
something down your throat', as you put it, but to remove the obstacles for a
successful transition to a better system *for everybody*.
You see, there is always a very high risk for doing things differently, uniquely, if
the environment overwhelmingly does not. Therefore, what happens is that businesses
are missing out on the opportunity to do better and prosper more by being forced by
the environment to operate inefficiently, and since everybody would likewise be
losing, too, the status quo remains and nobody loses!
However, this will ultimately hurt us as a country, the more world markets integrate
themselves via a process we call globalization. Why? Because there are foreign
companies who don't have this "compromise" with imperial measurements we insist on
having and, believe us, will definitely cash in on this comparative advantage and may
ultimately be the winners in this 'war'. So, do we honestly want to give *them* this
advantage? Wouldn't it be better if *we* could also enjoy the same benefits they
already do? **
It has cost our country billions of dollars to convert to metric
measure with no obvious business advantage, that I can see.
** Usually such advantages are indeed not as easily visualized, but, trust us, people
in the business community do know! We just wish they'd be more forthcoming to share
more with the public the news of such 'advantages'. **
Most
of our export is to the U.S. with added cost to every adjustment
to imperial measure. Every increase in cost eventually rolls down
the line to the consumers. We are pensioners and are very aware
of the affects of increased prices shrinking our pension.
** However, please don't blame metric for that! If, anything, it's sticking to an
inefficient system that is costing us more *in the long run*, and this *despite an
environment that may be overwhelmingly imperial*!
By the way, you may not be aware of the fact that according to some reliable sources,
almost 40% of the entire American industrial park has already metricated! And here,
please allow us to present two contrasting but convincing examples to you.
First, the more 'visual' one. The pharmaceutical and medical industries are metric -
even in the US! Have you already noticed that? When you buy medicine you buy it in
milligrams, grams, micrograms and the likes. If you watch the ER show, an *American*
production, all you hear is hospital staff personnel using kilograms, grams, liters,
etc, don't you? If YOUR life were at stake would you want it to depend on someone
doing the right conversion of units? For instance, figuring out how much medication
to dispense, or how much to cut during surgery, etc, if one were to grapple with
pounds, ounces, pints, gallons, liquid ounces, drams, inches, feet, and the likes. We
should be very thankful that this industry has already metricated - and long time ago
we should add, wouldn't you say?...
The second example is a 'hidden' one: the automotive industry. Many Americans are led
to believe that car manufacturers design vehicles in imperial measurements, since a
lot of things come to the public level still in imperial terms. However, it would
suffice a visit to an American car factory or to talk to a mechanic to see that the
picture is rather different. True, there may be some portions of a car that give the
impression that they remain imperial, like tires, torque, power rating, etc. However,
these are either not fundamentally part of the design process of a vehicle or are
simply 'dumbed down' for public consumption. Therefore, there is no 'harm' per se if
they remained so *as far as the public is concerned* for the time being! And thus the
public gets 'deceived' into believing that nothing has changed there. **
I doubt you will agree with anything I have written, however, thank
you for bringing it to our attention, I shall oppose the mandatory
time frame you are suggesting, by writing to the appropriate powers
that be. I vehemently oppose your suggested action. I will also
be writing to Jim Melenchuk to support his actions, or lack of action from your
point of view.
** And we honestly hope and pray that after reading the above you will decide not to.
Here goes our personal request to you. Please do not place yourselves in the opposite
side of the equation. Please consider what we have shared with you above, and let
progress take its course. Think of the world and heritage you would be leaving to
your children. Is it really worth keeping and fighting for something that is more and
more a reality of a sophisticated highly technological society we are living in.
You made a plea in the beginning of your letter to 'give us more time to absorb this'.
However, our response to you is that you actually don't need that much extra time.
All you'd need is to take a second look at this issue and ponder over what's been
presented to you here, and try it again. Perhaps it would also help if you talked to
people with metric backgrounds and get an assessment from them about how they feel
about it. Having a perspective from someone who's 'on the other side of the fence'
should certainly greatly help increase your understanding and appreciation of this
issue from where we're coming from. We're absolutely convinced that you will find
nearly only one position from them, that it's really worth adopting metric *for
ourselves*.
The SI system, unlike many would want you to believe, has been created from the ground
up as a user-friendly system. It's a system where it's the users who are actually the
ones who benefit the most. Many charge that metric is 'unnatural', 'unmanly', and
things like that, yet they fail to disclose that ALL metric underpinnings come from
nature and are based on easily grasped concepts. Like, water freezes at 0, boils at
100 degrees Celsius, the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light, and we could
go on and on and on. But the truth of the matter is, it's been one of the biggest
breakthroughs in the history of mankind, as scientists *around the world* could
finally come up with a system that could finally withstand the test of time and could
serve well generations and generations to come.
Therefore, *we*, in turn, would like to place a request before you and your husband,
Ma'am: please join *us* in this quest to make this country an even better one to live
in, and support our plan for a more modern, progressive Canada. Please, let progress
take its course, if not only for the benefit of our children and next generations.
We're convinced you won't regret it if you did so.
Best and warm regards, **
(Well... I don't honestly know the background of how this took place. Perhaps this
was a result of a couple of old folks visiting Greg's site or something. Whatever it
is, we should perhaps investigate more to find out who this individual they mentioned
is. Hopefully we can undo any potential damage this couple's contact might already
have been made
Marcus)
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
