> I would respond with ...
>
> Granted! And it's also better to use 6 L than 6000 cm^3.
> That's what the litre was created for ... to bridge the rather large
range between the cubic centimetre > and the cubic metre (or the even more
difficult range between a cubic millilmetre and a cubic metre).
>
> But how about 249 000 litres?
> ... or 0.0175 litres?
>
> Wouldn't you agree that they are easier to use if
> the 249 000 litres is expressed as 249 m^3
> and the 0.0175 litres is expressed 17.5 cm^3 ?
>
> I think that's where I would argue that we should not use
litres because the litre is not a convenient
> size for those measurements.
You're correct there. But for normal, daily, household use,
people very rarely deal with such large volumes. And I would
generally view 0.0175 liters as 17.5 milliliters rather than using cm^3.
But, that's me.
> I further contend that it is also better not to use kilolitres or
millilitres. The reason is that a kilolitre is > just a cubic metre so why
not use cubic metres, and the millilitre is just a cubic centimetre so why not
> use cubic centimetres. (See also PS at end.)
We could call them cubic centimeters, but that's two more syllables to
say each time the unit is spoken, and 5 more letters and a space to write
each time it's written. You can't deny that people (in the English
language, anyway) seem to prefer shortening
names. Microphone turns into "mike", television becomes
"TV", and even kilometer is occasionally shortened
to "klick". Milliliter is shorter to say and to write
than cubic centimeter, and is frequently shortened when spoken to "mil"
(not to be confused with the units known as mil).
We could write it as as cm^3, but to many people, exponents appear too
hard or too scientific or too geeky and difficult to understand (of
course, they're not).
Time will tell whether we settle on one unit or not.
