Two of our prolific writer's inputs ring true and may warrant discussion:
(1) What I do to promote metrication is to use the system personally, and in a fair amount of conversation ("the tree fell down blocking the road about 100m downhill...."). When I write about stuff I usually use SI, particularly about mountaineering, running and cross-country skiing. I always seek metric options on things we buy (cars to olive oil). I often write editors about obviously dumbed-down metric [Did anyone else notice the recent Popular Mechanics-- or was it -Science?) cover that had a huge headline about the "3200 foot skyscraper"?]
(2) Our poster also raised the very good issue of how much economic stimulus could be generated from metrication. This is a huge topic. Changing things--even some things--over to SI would be expensive, which just means it would take a lot of work. A lot of work is what a nation where lots of people are NOT working needs! Is it better to have people--from housewives/husbands to engineers to administrators--spending their time doing things to promote future productive efficiency---than to have them fussing with handbag design, squeezing more horsepower out of oversized automobile engines, or inventing doodads like built-in TV screens in the rest room mirrors in the new Yankee Stadium in New York?
Can we sink our teeth into this last one? HARRY WYETH
