Due to my background as both an American and (chemical) engineer, I am fluent in metric, American, and domain specific unit systems used in chemical engineering that are neither American nor metric. I can switch between these as necessary quite fluidly; it is an elementary skill as a chemical engineer.<p>I would argue that being limited to a single unit system is like being limited to a single language. In principle, no one needs more than one but in practice the differences in expressiveness for different purposes are interesting and useful. These differences in expressiveness are connected to the continued existence of different systems.<p>America is big enough and is sufficiently independent of trade in its economy (most of its stupendous production is also internally consumed) that the cost of not transitioning to metric is marginal. I understand why metric is a good system but simultaneously understand why the benefit of metric is dubious for the average American. Remember, American units are defined in terms of metric units; it is a preference, an American can precisely convert to metric at any time if they deem it useful. But they don't because it serves little purpose.<p>Basically, like their language, Americans occupy a big enough economic sphere that they get to define their standards. An enormous number of global standards are American in origin as it is. I don't sweat the lack of metric even though I use it routinely. Once you become familiar with enough unit and arithmetic systems, you quickly learn that they <i>all</i> suck in some context.<p>It is pointless to turn these things into religions.
I think that the article is sorely missing the point of the metric system. It's not about communication. For communication, the frathe of reference doesn't matter, as long as both parties agree on the same reference. In fact, I find imperial units to be somewhat more intuitive than metric units.<p>Instead, it's all about unit conversion. One liter of water weighs one kilogram and is a one decimeter cubmore room degrees is where water freezes, and 100 degrees is where it boils. This makes water the universal conversion constant, which makes it easy to compare different units (eg weights and volumes).<p>Also, it's trivial to convert meters to millimeters and kilometers. But this happens surprisingly seldom in practice compared to converting volumes to weights or lenghts.
This article claims Americans initially rejected the metric system because it was "too French", which is an inaccurate exaggeration.<p>Before the metric system was created, the US, which had recently won independence, was put in the position of selecting a standard system of weights and measures. Jefferson suggested a decimal system based off the seconds pendulum at 45° latitude. He did this in coordination with scientists in France with the direct goal of achieving a universal standard. Before congress could adopt this system, the French modified their standard:<p><i>Although French scientists working on a decimal system had originally supported using the seconds pendulum as a scientific basis, and Jefferson had deliberately matched his seconds pendulum proposal to the French one, based on a measurement at the latitude of Paris, the French decided to use the length of a meridian of the Earth instead of a seconds pendulum. This and other developments changed what had promised to be an internationally developed system into a strictly French project. Jefferson wrote, "The element of measure adopted by the National Assembly excludes, ipso facto, every nation on earth from a communion of measurement with them."</i><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_for_Establishing_Uniformity_in_the_Coinage,_Weights,_and_Measures_of_the_United_States#Subsequent_developments" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_for_Establishing_Uniformit...</a><p>As a result the US wound up passing on Jefferson's system and eventually settling on US "customary" units.<p>The real benefit of adopting the metric system is to have a consistent, widespread system of units. The United States has had this for over 200 years and most sectors of the economy have been isolated enough from Europe and the rest of the world where adopting metric has not been worth it. Industries that are increasingly global (automotive, electronics, etc) have already effectively adopted metric.
(Devil's advocate time...)<p>I wish that the French had gone all of the way to a duodecimal system, and a base 12 measurement system. Most of the arguments for the Imperial system surround the fact that in convenient places you can divide things in half or thirds. And a base 12 time system could have been compelling enough to replace the Babylonian base 60 system that we are stuck with. The one that, even in the metric system makes it hard to convert from meters/second to km/hour.
Mountains out of molehills. The truth of it is, it doesn't matter what the default unit of measurement is as long as you know to clearly specify the unit! :) Like language translation, let others convert your "native" units into their local version. This is no different than how foods or tastes change, or sometimes even color preferences, can change regionally. At least we've moved beyond "m" means both "metre" and "mile". Generally people now say "mi" when they mean "mile", so I'll take that as a win. I tried to convert the word "mile" to other languages, but ended up finding that in many translations, they converted US miles into native miles or kilometres, and so did not have a clearly defined word for such things. Which is why I emphasize being specific about the unit of measure. The rest doesn't really matter. 70°F? 21°C? Feels about the same to me! That said, I wish everyone would hurry up on the YYYY-MM-DD adoption. Always confuses me to see 2-digit days and months and not know which is which.
Can't you just split the question in 2 parts ?<p>- Is the metric system superior to the American (bastard) imperial system ?<p>- Is it worth the switch ?<p>There are a lot of other accidental situations out there that are (perceived to be) too costly to eradicate. For example, in Europe (not the UK) we drive on the right hand side while yielding the right of way to the right as well. For safety reasons, it would have been better to switch on of the two to the left. Will it happen? probably not.<p>Actually, cost might even be irrelevant:
The Chinese still use chop-sticks while a fork is clearly more practical.
Amongst all the rationalizations I miss the one thing that is typical for the US as a young immigrant nation with little history: a desperate need to cling to any kind of custom or tradition to create a sense of identity. Especially if those customs set them apart from the rest of the world.<p>This goes well beyond the metric system. In many ways the US is extremely old-fashioned in the eyes of other Westerners, clinging to customs most of us have abandoned many decades ago. Unless there is a clear economic advantage in it, the US is strongly resistant to change for fear of diluting its still relatively young and shallow identity.<p>On typical form of American deflection is coming up with elaborate explanations why what works for other countries won't work for America. Sometimes these exceptionalist arguments are not entirely untrue (the US is an exceptional nation in many ways), but they become really transparent when they try to argue why other countries are different. (Most of those arguments just show a willful cultural ignorance, especially remarkable when coming from well-educated and well-traveled Americans.)<p>No, for the US there is no compelling economic reason to go metric. But that's not the reason why it doesn't, that's just the rationalization du jour. Any other country would not be afraid to adopt the simple convenience of joining the rest of world in a single standard.
I learned both systems in school--our rulers always had inches and centimeters--but we never really learned the metric system until much later in science classes. I think there's a strong argument to be made that the metric system is easier to learn and could be taught at the same time as counting and basic arithmetic. It would make learning science and math easier in higher grades and waste less class time. I'm honestly surprised there are so many comments here defending the Imperial system.
I rarely see anyone consider that the American system has at least one fundamental advantage: it's closer to a binary system, rather than decimal.<p>Why do we want a decimal system? The only reason for a base of 10 that I can see is that we have ten fingers. But binary systems map better to a lot of real-world problems.<p>If baking, are you more likely to take a recipe and halve it or cut it by a factor of ten? In construction, are you more likely to subdivide an area into two, or ten? If you split a stock, are you more likely to split two-to-one or ten-to-one?<p>The answer, in all those cases, is the former, which is favored by a binary system. Forcing decimal upon us is what leaves us with numbers like 0.125 rather than 1/8.<p>So rather than move to metric, let's come up with a more consistent base-two system, and then we can all use that. (Just saying that to make a point; not a serious proposal.)
Metrologically, even the pound is defined in terms of metric kilograms. Yes, I speak of the least worthy metric unit that is still defined in terms of an ingot sitting somewhere in France instead of a phenomena of nature. As such, the U.S. has gone entirely metric, and has been metric for over a century. It's just that some people insist on using second-rate translations of metric that are based on units inherited from the good ol' colonial days when the British ruled all.<p>As a Canadian, I am forced to use some imperial units to this day because of my close proximity to the U.S.. This is in spite of the fact that the empire that created imperial units has now gone totally metric. Way to go U.S.A.. You crazy living anachronistic monarchists. I bet you even think sticking to Imperial units is patriotic somehow too! Freakin' hilarious.
I live in Phoenix, a city built entirely on a mile-demarked grid. It's useful to be able to approximate how far everything is in whole units based on the grid, and I reckon it would take a very long time before people just referred to them as "blocks" or something similar.
For me, it's not about the length or the scale of the temperature, it's having grown up with the "feel" or the "time" of a measurement.<p>If I see a road sign that says it's 130 miles to Chicago, then I know how much time it's going to take me to get there. I don't have that "feel" for seeing 209km.<p>If I see it's 60° (F) out, I know how that feels, I know how to dress for it. I have a very different expectation if I see it's 15° (C).<p>I personally think that's the biggest barrier to conversion, the learned, in-grained expectation of time or sensation when seeing a measurement expressed.
Going metric isn't economical in the US as it has been elsewhere. You can't expect all the individual businesses to do something that isn't in their interest, and in general, when you've got this big a country with a single measuring system, it's not going to be in an individual business's interest to retool. This was not the case in most other places, where there was a lot more pressure to standardize because you might have a few different measuring systems within a few hundred mile radius.
While I appreciate the history lesson in the article I strongly disagree with<p>> Is global uniformity a good thing? Not when it comes to cultural issues, and customary measures are certainly a part of our national culture.<p>because you can define everything as a part of culture. I don't even want to go into examples (think "ugly things countries did and do").<p>So, yes, ideally there is no need for anyone to adopt anything, but it's not because it's part of culture.
The real question is "why <i>should</i> America go metric?"<p>When you're such a large country, you can afford to do things your own way - others will accommodate you.
I stumbled upon a very interesting short documentary about the metric system and the world's roundest object. Well worth 10 minutes of your break today. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y</a>
I like the american system. It's based on 12 which is easily divisible by 2,4,3,(and 6 obviously) making it practical and easy to use for handy jobs. Having fractions of an inch divisible by factors of 2 is also far more convenient than using a decimal system imho. Why not just use a system that lists both units?
Metric is overrated. It's both too recent an invention and a part of the long gone movement that thought everything is to be rebuilt, you know, "rationally." It didn't turn out more rational as a result, at least not the kind of rationality that we really need.<p>[Edit] Disclaimer: I am from a country that went metric a century ago.