Three Silly Reasons for Not Adopting the Metric System
The following are three arguments which I've actually heard people put
forward against the U.S. completing conversion to the metric system.
1. The Imperial system is based on natural proportions of the human
body (1 yard=length from nose to fingertip, etc.), making it a more natural
system for humans to use.
Human vary widely in body measurements. My own foot, for example, is 10
inches, or 25 cm, long-- not 12 inches. For the child learning the Imperial
system, one's personal body measurements are very different from those of an
adult, making the comparison to body parts less useful. While it's true that
Imperial units of length are said to derive from the body proportions of some
12th century king, it's questionable whether anyone actually visualizes a
thumb or an outstretched arm when making an eyeball estimate of length.
But perhaps there is nevertheless some mnemonic value in connecting units
of measure with body measurements. If you like, you can do this with the
metric system, too. My hand is 10 cm wide; my pinky fingernail is 1 cm wide;
and it's 1 meter from the floor to my belt. These are nice, even, metric
figures which match up with typical adult body measurements at least as well
as those of the Imperial system. I can't think of any sense in which a
hand-width is less natural than the length of a human foot or the width of a
thumb.
2. The motivation for the metric system is that base-10
calculations are easier than the various groupings of 3, 12, 16, etc. found in
the Imperial system. However, since we can now do our calculations by
computer, this argument goes away.
A great deal of calculation is still performed by hand, and this will
continue to be so. For example, carpenters still often do calculations with a
pencil on a scrap of wood. The conversions necessary within the Imperial
system (e.g., 1 foot = 12 inches; 1 pound = 16 ounces) make these calculations
not only more laborious but also more error-prone, resulting in higher costs
because of human error.
Further, it takes human effort to program computers, and the complexity of
the Imperial system is yet one more snarl to increase software development
time. If you are planning to market your software product outside the U.S.,
you will need to go to the extra expense of supporting both metric and
Imperial versions.
True, computers can rapidly convert between feet and inches; but with each
such complication, the chance of introducing of bugs in the software becomes
greater. With the metric system, all calculations are in decimal math. Since
virtually all programming languages have built-in and well-tested support for
decimal math, the chance for bugs to arise is much less, as is the programming
effort involved.
3. The Fahrenheit scale makes a finer set of divisions than the
Celsius scale; to get the same level of precision in the Celsius scale, you
have to use a decimal point.
For most people, the difference between, say, 71 and 72 degrees Fahrenheit
is of no practical consequence. For example, few people choose their daily
clothing based on such a subtle distinction.
The only people who ordinarily need such fine precision in heat
measurements are scientists, who are comfortable with the use of the decimal
point, and who universally use the Celsius scale anyway.
Okay, I lied. I said there would be three reasons on this page, but here's
sort of a fourth reason:
4. Who does the government think it is, telling me what system of
measurements I have to use?
Standardizing weights and measures is an entirely proper role of
government, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically gave
Congress this authority. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
Congress shall have the power ... [to] fix the standard of
weights and measures[.]
If it chose, Congress could require the use of the metric system and make
an outright ban on the use of the Imperial system. Instead, it has permitted
the continued use of the Imperial system, asking individuals and businesses to
voluntarily switch to the metric system.
Contrast this with the more direct approach of the European government,
which after 1999 is simply banning the import or sale of non-metric products.
Starting in 2000, the Netherlands* will actually be imposing a fine for
importing or selling products which include any inch-pound measures on the
label. From this perspective, the U.S. Congress has been quite generous in
respecting individual choice-- for once, probably too much so.
*Update (6 April 1998): I later learned that it is not just the Netherlands
which will be imposing the fine, but rather the whole of the EEC. A consortium
of American corporations is currently lobbying the European government for the
law to be relaxed. However, the original restriction was scheduled to take
effect in 1990 and has already been postponed once; American industry did
little over the past decade to prepare for the upcoming deadline. Rather than
put its energies into lobbying the European government to prepetuate the
dual-system situation, American business should put its energies into lobbying
the U.S. government to proactively work to complete metrication in the U.S.
once and for all.
Sean Crist's
Homepage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
