Metrication…
Conversion within a unit system. Know how many inches in a foot? Of course you do. How many ounces in a pint? Probably. How about in a gallon? Uh. How many feet in a mile? How about a nautical mile? If you know all those, you have a better memory than I do. Know how many meters in a kilometer? Yep, 1000. How many mm in a meter? Yep, 1000. Know how many grams in a kg? 1000 again. See no memory required. So, how many mm in 5.876 m? 5876. So, how many feet in 756 inches? How many nautical miles in 19, 6758 feet? How easy is it to check to see if your answer is right in metric? And English units? Admit it, you’re going to have to use the calculator twice, assuming you get the same answer both times.You want to know why European and Asian kids are kicking our children’s butts in math and science? I guarantee this is part of the reason.
Conversion to a different system of units. You know, whenever there’s an issue with metrication, it’s almost always because of conversion. Someone does their calculations in one system of units and then converts it, but makes a mistake along the way. Or someone does calculations in one system of units and doesn’t notice it needs to be converted. We’ve lost spacecraft that way. So, why does that argue for one system over the other. Well everyone but us uses the smart system. If we stop using English units, conversion issues become a thing of the past because, hey, we don’t have to convert any more.
There are, of course, also reasons associated with making us compatible with the rest of the world, improving the appeal of our products overseas. And that it’s the law that we change (which has been there for decades). Tool simplification, drastically reducing long term production costs because of reduced spares and tooling requirements. Lower error rates across the board because it’s so much simpler. There’s the fact that many aspects of life are already effectively 100% metric even in this country, like medicine and real science.
But, the bottom line is that the only reason we’re still doing things the stupid way is because we’re too proud to do otherwise. And our children are paying for it.
*Skipped the math did you?
How’s this for a reason? If you weighed 190 pounds, you’ll mass 86 kg. That’s right, a double digit mass.
(Found via 3quarksdaily.)
Great post. I’ll bet my life this issue has to do with politics and filthy money.
pochp
7 Dec 08 at 10:06 am
Most likely. I’m going to add it to my sticky list of things to delve a little more into. I wonder if there would be a way to legislate it on a smaller scale. Get Delaware or South Dakota to do the conversion themselves and get the ball rolling.
Fry
7 Dec 08 at 10:18 am
Great idea!
pochp
7 Dec 08 at 10:38 am
Dear Evan Fryer,
Congratulations on this post. I agree with you all the way.
To get support for your metrication programs, you might like to check out my website where you will also find an article about the costs to the USA not going metric at http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf
And just for fun, you might like to see my tongue-in-cheek view of where the USA has got to so far with its metrication upgrade. See http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/DontUseMetric.pdf
You might also like to check the web site of the United States Metric Association where you will find many people who hold similar views to yours.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Geelong, Australia
Pat Naughtin
8 Dec 08 at 10:14 pm
If you want to really mess it up ask for yards, rods, chains, acres, and leagues. Then there are pecks, bushels, drams, ounces, the other ounces, and grains. The English took centuries to perfect this system and then they go an side with the French!
Dad
8 Dec 08 at 11:58 pm
HA HA!! I like that Dad!
pochp
9 Dec 08 at 7:56 am
I totally agree with the article. What we use for measurement here in the U.S. is a joke. Metric makes much more sense, and switching to it will eliminate those pesky conversion errors.
Bob
9 Dec 08 at 5:36 pm
Evan,
Thank you very much for your excellent post on the metric system. The organization I represent has been working for U.S. metrication since 1916. Many times, we have heard bizarre arguments intended to counter your common sense. It is not only pride, but stubbornness, and even out and out super-nationalism, that keep the American people from adopting an improved standard of measurement. Posts such as yours remind everyone about the direction in which we should be headed as a nation.
SI-ncerely,
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
Public Relations Director
U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
http://www.metric.org
trusten@grandecom.net
+1(432)528-7724
Paul Trusten, R.Ph., Public Relations Director, U.S. Metric Association, Inc.
9 Dec 08 at 7:35 pm
If only President-Elect Barack Obama could read your metric entry on your blog! You have hit the nail on the head.
JOHN CANDIDO
9 Dec 08 at 10:44 pm
How many ounces in a pint – everyone knows that there are 20 fluid ounces in a pint. “Twenty?” I hear you ask – “It is sixteen!”
Who is right – you or me? Well we both are – that is if you are a Yank and I am a Brit – the fluid ounce, the pint and the gallon magically change as they cross the Atlantic. However the litre does not (apart from its spelling, but then the Germans write “liter” and the French write “litre”). However,everybody is agreed what a litre is.
Martin Vlietstra
10 Dec 08 at 12:06 am
It certainly would be easier for those of us who struggle with math. It would give me more time to concentrate on the clock, which is unlikely to be converted to metric anytime soon. However, the hospital I work at seems to think that the clock is metric. We were recently told not to clock in early by more than 1/10 of an hour or late by 2/10 of an hour. Say what?! I know how much that comes to, but just giving us the minutes would be a lot easier. Oh, and everything there is done in military time. Too much math for us artistic types.
Aunt Nancy
8 Jan 09 at 2:05 pm
Aunt Nancy, your idea ‘too much math for us artistic types’ is deep and artistically sarcastic. I like it.
pochp
8 Jan 09 at 2:30 pm