2002-11-28 This group seems to be divided between those who want a planned, quick metrication and those who want those "market forces" to either push metrication or let the status quo exist. Maybe somewhere in-between is the right answer for the US. We really don't need to have a 100 % push right now, but we need some type of push to at least get the ball rolling. We don't even have that. As soon as the ball does begin to roll, someone stops it and pushes it back
All we rally need to do is get metrication to advance to a point of critical mass. It is at that point that we can allow metrication to proceed unmolested or reach a high point of usage without fear of reversal to FFU. Critical mass is the point where it becomes uneconomical to continue to use FFU. It is a point where raw materials and finished goods only come in metric sizes and are described only that way. Those who wish to continue in FFU will only cause hardship on themselves. They either metricate on their own or go out of business. I remember reading some years back that when the Australian construction industry went metric at least one builder refused to change. No one told him he couldn't keep on using FFU. But, something happened. He couldn't buy FFU supplies. No one was making them. And those that said they could wanted him to buy astronomical amounts at real high prices with long lead times. In the end, he went out of business and blamed metrication for his demise. I'm sure other builders in Australia at that time jumped for joy, as it was one less competitor to deal with. The first step in this type of metrication is to define at what point critical mass exists. Is it the 50 % point? We are supposed to be at 40 % now, so we really need only change 10 % more if this be the case. Or is it key industries? Many industries are metric, but let's face it, they are metric in secret as far as Joe Six-pack is concerned. If we took a poll, I'd bet well over 90 % of Americans would feel that the US is virtually 100 % FFU. Their metric experiences are very limited. Metric companies and industries have done very little to advertise their metric usage. Metric is only used by foreigners. So, the public is unaware of any metric usage by American companies. One way to promote metric is for our government (or someone else) to point out to the country how metric we really are. And how and what being in the middle is costing us. If it isn't the government that is going to do it, then someone with an interest in metric can and should. How? I don't know right now. But, with ideas and suggestions from others maybe a method can be devised. What about the psychological approach? We've discussed this before. That is where we get products such as gasoline and grocery store scales to convert right away. This also includes such things as football fields, weather reporting, and highway signs. Metrication of all or most of these may push us to the point of critical mass. How? Simply by exposing the whole country en-masse to SI. Many, especially opponents to metrication say metrication of these areas is a waste of money and serves no purpose. OH, but it does. These area are easy to metricate and have the effect of exposing the most people to a working use of SI almost over night. Just think how quickly the masses will adapt to SI if they have to buy their gas and food by the litre and kilogram respectively, hear only metric weather reports, drive down metricated highways, and hear and see football and similar sports described only in metres. And what would it cost to make such a change? If the nations gasoline pumps and grocery store scales are already metric capable and all that need be done is for a qualified person to flip a switch or set a different code into the program, then the cost is minimal or not at all. Weather reporting cost nothing to metricate, the reported just starts speaking metric one day. Road signs will cost something, but their metrication can be planned to make costs minimal. Just think of the psychological effect it will have on the population as well as push it will have on business as they try to keep up with the change. Those who believe in the market forces method of conversion really need to come to grips with reality. The reality is nothing will change on its own. It needs a push in the right direction and at the right time and place. So, folks, how do we get that ball rolling again? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2002-11-27 18:43 Subject: [USMA:23632] Metric in the media, etc. > John wrote: > [begin quote] > We know that an abrupt break with the old is the most effective, but try > convincing the masses of that, especially when you have the anti-metric > crowd sabotaging metrication efforts. > [end quote] > > Quite true! The best way would be to follow Australia's example. Since > people in the U.S. aren't willing to commit to that kind of change at this > point, we have to do it the slow way. > > I don't see "the anti-metric crowd" as being the biggest problem--it's just > that most people don't pay much attention to measurement systems. Most > people are somewhat conservative and simply go with the crowd. I would > assert that these reasons are why the M&M packages mentioned recently were > labeled the way they were. I do not see a grand conspiracy at work there, > but I expect that many people on this list will continue to believe in it. > > On to other things. > > This was on CNN's website today: > [begin quote] > The summer issue of The New South Wales Sea Kayaker magazine warned of the > risk of bull sharks in Australian rivers, saying they had been found in most > Australian water systems. > > "This shark is very, very dangerous. Some experts consider this shark to be > the most dangerous in the world, even surpassing the Great White Shark," the > magazine said. > > It said the bull shark, which measures up to 3.5 metres (10 feet) in length > and weighs around 230 kg (104 pounds), can survive in fresh or saltwater and > will eat almost anything. > [end quote] > > Either they need a lesson in how to use a calculator or they should just > leave the metric units alone. Obviously, the person who included the number > of pounds wasn't paying much attention. Even in colloquial units it doesn't > make sense (10 feet long and only 104 pounds? Is this an anorexic shark?). > I did not send a comment to CNN yet, since I sent one recently. If anyone > else wants to do so, go ahead. As of this afternoon the article was at: > http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/11/26/australia.drought.reut/in > dex.html > > I liked Jim Frysinger's reply to NBC's Nightly News. It was polite and > diplomatic, and it pointed out that something they did was kind of silly. > It is much better than a rant. > > In Utah's Deseret News yesterday I found the ad that I attached as an image. > I was quite surprised to see it, especially considering that this is a very > conservative state. I like to think that my letter to the editor last month > may be partly responsible (who knows?). > > Carl > > > >
