Pro-metric, and anti-Customary actually. We don't use Imperial here, so I can be more indifferent to it. Although the UK has some of the same problems as we do. Different in the details, but conceptually choice and mixed laws have similarly delayed effective metrication.
I think in the US, to be pro-metric and successfully advocate it, you also have to be somewhat anti-Customary Choice, ie, indifference as to which measurement is used, is part of the problem and causes errors to be made by increasing complexity (Mars Climate orbiter, Gimli glider, assorted medical errors, etc). Supposedly, metric is our preferred system, but almost no one uses it because they are more used to Customary, Congress won't force anyone (or let anyone be forced) to use metric. Metric would be a lot less painful if we just made people do it and get it over with. The present situation is like slowly removing a band-aid (plaster??) vs just giving it a good tug. Those who have voluntarily gone metric find that the US world isn't entirely metric and you have to be a little Customary too. Some food is dual-labeled, others are only labeled in Customary (beer, random weight packages, and meat in standardized packages). You need a mix of metric and Customary tools. Most local building codes don't accept metric construction standards, etc. So you can't be forced to be metric, but if you volunteer, you find you are sometimes forced to be Customary. Does it make sense to be forced to use the non=preferred system? Congress lies, metric is NOT our preferred measurement system, and if it were, it would have to push Customary aside. Choice (measurment indifference) just won't work, or none of the benefit of being metric will accrue. Hopefully, it is not necessary to be irrationally anti-Customary. I don't want to expunge it from literary works, from historical references, or where we actually need (and need to convert) the old data. I don't, for example, believe we should throw out all the old data and re-measure. ________________________________ From: Stephen Humphreys <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, March 7, 2010 4:52:30 PM Subject: [USMA:46870] RE: Replacement of metric signs on I-19 (Arizona) deferred A couple of things are worth responding to. 1) You'll have to ask Mr Steele whether he was being anti-imperial or pro-metric. ________________________________ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:46869] RE: Replacement of metric signs on I-19 (Arizona) deferred Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 20:52:10 +0000 " "Stephen, you don't have to be 'anti' the opposite to what you are 'pro-' to, if that makes sense. In fact that position (IMHO) is more honourable, realistic and mature. And it makes the argument less personal - again all IMHO."
