> You are correct that there needs to be some sort of > "declaration of war" or > "We choose to go to the moon" type of effort to > finish metrication. However, > I think the key here is to emphasize the importance > of how much money will > be saved in the long run by doing so.
Showing the savings by changing, versus not changing will be very important, because it's not very evident to most Americans. The opponents to metrication will quickly emphasize the costs of changing, because that's easy to show. It's like when someone says "But I saved $20, by buying this $100 (whatever item) , when it was on sale!" The reply is, "You could have saved $100 by not buying it at all." > Remember, we all think Canada is > metric because their road signs are. I will admit that Canada is only partially metricated, with the mostly visible areas being our road signs and weather reporting. In other areas it's a bit haphazard, with a little bit here (like deli items ordered per 100 g, and meats and fruits displayed with a large price per lb and a small price per kg.) > Some of us > know the ugly truth. I > won't even discuss the U.K. as it has already been > discussed ad-nauseum here > already. I definitely see the UK being more metric in areas where Canada is not, and Canada being more metric where the UK is not. > Also, without a really good coordinated public > service/education campaign, > we are just spinning our wheels. The problem is that it's viewed as a political hot potato, as well as not being a high priority item these days.
