Metrication controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

The introduction of the metric system has faced some opposition in a number of countries over the past two hundred years. Based on an old U.S. Metric Association and recent CIA survey it is commonly cited that only the United States of America, Liberia and Burma (Myanmar) have not officially adopted the metric system.^{[1] [2]} The reality, however, is more complicated. Guyana, for example, has officially adopted the metric system every three to five years, on average, since 1981, each time with little success.^[3] Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, continue to use some imperial units in both official and everyday usage, often in combination with the equivalent metric units. Certain measurements remain exclusively imperial, for example, UK road signs almost exclusively give distances in miles and yards.

[edit] Anti-metrication arguments

[edit] Natural evolution and human scale

This derivation of the Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci, depicts nine historical units of measurement: the Yard, the Span, the Cubit, the Flemish Ell, the English Ell, the French Ell, the Fathom, the Hand , and the Foot. The Vitruvian man was drawn to scale, so the units depicted are displayed with their proper historical ratios.

One argument used by opponents of the metric system is that traditional systems of measurement were developed organically from actual use.^[4] Early measures were human in scale. In English, traditional expressions such as a stone's throw, within earshot, a cartload or a handful disclose the internal logic of traditional measurements. These measures were often relational and commensurable: a request for a judgment of measure allowed for a variety of answers, depending on the context of the request. In parts of Malaysia, villagers asked the distance to the next village were likely to respond with "three rice cookings"; an approximation of the time it would take to travel there on foot. Everyone is assumed to know how long it takes to cook rice. Named units referring to seeming standards also were contextualized. The aune, a French ell used for measuring cloth, depended on the sort of cloth you were measuring, taking price and scarcity into account; an aune of silk was shorter than an aune of linen.^[5]

The traditional English units of measure, at least reflect these original and organic methods of measuring. But at the same time there is little or no standardization in them. There are numerous measures of ounce: the fluid ounce is the same as the dry ounce only for fluids of a density similar to that of water, and ounces of gold do not weigh the same as ounces of grain. A number of these units, such as the foot, share their name with physical objects, even though they do not always match the size of that physical object. For example, the "foot" is slightly longer than the length of an average human's foot. Folklore relates the yard to the length between the nose and thumb of several kings of England. Tradition^{[citation needed]} also relates the fathom to the distance between a man's outstretched arms: an estimate reflected in its names in other languages, such as French brasse and Italian braccio. Human-scale units used or formerly used in English include the digit, finger, palm, hand, span, and the Biblical cubit, traditionally defined as the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the outstretched hand. The virtue of these units was not scientific precision, but rather that they allowed people to easily learn them and make estimates and judgments of size: in other words, each one was a handy "rule of thumb"^{[citation needed]}.

It is argued^[who?] that the metric system, on the other hand, employs only a small number of base units, none of which are based on the human body. This, the anti-metrication movement^[who?] says, has led to a system where the standard metric units of length, capacity, and weight, are either too large or too small to be conveniently usable or memorable for many purposes. Similarly defenders^[who?] of the Fahrenheit scale claim (erroneously^[6]) that it was designed specifically for the purpose of weather-measurement.^{[citation needed]} The scale therefore provides an accessible reference for the varying temperature ranges likely to be encountered in termperate climates. Celsius, on the other hand, uses both negative and positive numbers in the common temperature range, giving it the strong advantage of clearly pegging the freezing point at 0°C, an extremely important temperature in every day life (especially road conditions) and agriculture.

Members^[who?] of the anti-metrication movement say that traditional measurements have evolved over time, naturally picking up improvements to make them more useful to more people. Thus, it is claimed^[who?], they have grown in a way that the metric system, with its rigid systemization, could not. Proponents^[who?] of metrication will point out the advantages of a systematic approach such as that of the metric system, arguing that it is worth forgoing these claimed naturally-evolved units.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] High modernism and legibility

The metric system originated in the ideology of "Pure Reason" that was a feature of the more radical element of the French Revolution.^[7] The metric system was devised in France as part of a proposal that attempted to make France "revenue-rich, militarily potent, and easily administered."^[8] It was intended as part of a conscious plan to transform French culture. "As mathematics was the language of science, so would the metric system be the language of commerce and industry," meant to unify and transform French society.^[9]

In his 1998 monograph Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, James C. Scott argues that central governments attempt to impose what he calls "legibility" on their subjects. Local folkways concerning measurements, like local customs concerning patronymics, tend to come under severe pressure from bureaucracies. Scott's thesis is that in order for schemes to improve the human condition to succeed, they must take into account local conditions, and that the high-modernist ideologies of the 20th century have prevented this. Scott cites the enforcement of the metric system as a specific example of this sort of failed and resented "improvement" imposed by centralizing and standardizing authority.^[10]

While the metric system was imposed on France by the revolutionary government in the end of the eighteenth century, it failed to preempt traditional measurements in the popular mind, and its use was initially associated with officialdom and elitism (still, it gained much popularity after standardized education was introduced into France^{[citation needed]}). In 1828 Chateaubriand remarked, "Whenever you meet a fellow who, instead of talking arpents, toises, and pieds, refers to hectares, metres, and centimetres, rest assured, the man is a prefect."^[11]

New schemes may end some popular traditions. The anti-metrication movement is an example of this resistance. Even if the adoption (or imposition) of new schemes have the potential of proven or expected efficiency gains, change may not be accepted voluntarily, especially if it is perceived as an imposition.

[edit] Price inflation

Opponents of metrication argue that adoption of metric measures in shops, especially in supermarkets, can provide an opportunity for traders to increase prices covertly.^[12] An example of this is in the United States, when liquor started to be sold in the international standard (750 ml, about 0.198 gal) instead of in fifths of a (U.S. fluid) gallon (0.2 gal, about 757 ml) and the price remained the same.^[12]

However, most common metric units are a little larger than their nearest U.S./imperial counterparts: one metre is a little more than a yard (1 m = 1.094 yd), one litre is a little more than a U.S. quart (1 L = 1.0567 qt) (though a little less than an imperial quart), half a kilogram is a little more than a pound (0.5 kg = 1.102 lb). For example, Pepsi was the first to sell soft drinks in two-litre bottles (called the "Big Boss")^[13], at a time when two-quart (US)(1.89 L) bottles were prevalent. This was quite successful, and now two-litre bottles and other metric bottle sizes are well-established in the American soda market, especially for larger sizes, though ounces remain the usual unit of measure for cans.

[edit] Unit confusion

Several traditional units have the same name yet measure different quantities, or even different types of measure. Such confusion is not possible with the metric system, where there are no two units named alike.

For example, the term "gallon" could refer to the U.S. dry gallon, the U.S. liquid gallon, the Imperial gallon, or a variety of obsolete gallons that have not seen common use since the 19th century. The ounce can be a measure of volume or mass (with an equivalence only for fluids at the density of water or thereabouts). There are many types and sizes of barrel, each of which has a precise (but different) definition depending on what is being measured. The bushel, a measure of dry volume, now customarily refers to given weight of various products, such weight depending on the product and the jurisdiction.

The toise, from the traditional French units of measurement, can refer to either length or area, though in this case, there was a relationship, with one toise of area being equal to one square toise of length. In 20th century Haiti this usage was extended to cover volume with one toise of volume being one cubic toise of length.

[edit] Unit proliferation

An often cited^{[citation needed]} argument is that imperial units are based on "natural measures". However, there is no clear systematics between them. Factors between units include 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 16, 20, 110 and 231. The idea of "natural measures" has also led to an enormous proliferation of units: teaspoon, tablespoon, ounce, cup, pint, quart, gallon, to name only some frequently used measures of volume.

[edit] Tradition

For some, anti-metrication is a form of traditionalism, looking to a history of usage that stretches back centuries or even millennia. Sometimes it is even considered part of patriotism.^{[citation needed]}

The non-metric units have changed values many times throughout history. At the time of the French revolution there were over 5000 variations on the foot alone, making it almost impossible to determine which is traditionally correct. The present imperial system is the result of a clean-up in 1824, some 30 years after the founding of the metric system.

Metric units, however, have not been exempt from redefinitions or refinements. The metre, for instance, was intended to equal 10⁻⁷ or one ten-millionth of the length of the meridian through Paris from pole to the equator. However, the first prototype was short by 0.2 millimetres because researchers miscalculated the flattening of the Earth. It is now defined as the length travelled by light in a vacuum during the time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second, however, a reference standard (a rod of platinum-iridium alloy) is maintained in Paris, and calibration of a standard metre is usually achieved (to one part in a billion, or slightly better in some recent installations ^[14]) by counting 1,579,800.298728 wavelengths of the ultra-fine (3s₂ to 2p₄) emission line of helium-neon laser light (this wavelength being approximately 632.991 398 22 nm in a vacuum).

These redefinitions of the metre did not change its length, merely the precision and consistency with which it was defined.

[edit] Government compulsion

Another common argument^[who?] is that the adoption of metric units has almost always been a matter of government compulsion, prohibiting people from using units they were used to, and that such policies are wrong in principle. In fact, standardisation of weights and measures has a long history that predates metrication in Common Law countries. The habit of 'short' measure meant that legislation became essential, but the idea of compulsory standards has a long history. In 1824, for example, the Weights and Measures Act ("An Act for ascertaining and establishing Uniformity of Weights and Measures") consolidated the various gallons in use at the time and established a new imperial gallon, simultaneously prohibiting the use of the older units.

Anti-metrication in the UK often manifests itself in conjunction with Euroscepticism because of the belief that the European Union is responsible for compulsory metrication, although metrication had been recommended by government advisors in 1950. The process was initiated by the government establishing the Metrication Board in 1969, four years before joining the European Economic Community. In more recent times, anti-metrication supporters have asserted that the (claimed) legal compulsion to adopt the metric system instead of their traditional weights and measures is an infringement of a right to freedom of speech, though this claim has been consistently rejected by the courts. Most recently, on 25 February 2004, the European Court of Human Rights rejected an application from some British shopkeepers who said that their human rights had been violated. In a "U-turn" on 8 May 2007, the European Commission decided to allow meat, fish, fruit and vegetables to continue to be sold in pounds and ounces in Britain indefinitely. ^[15]

In the U.S., there is also government compulsion with regard to measurement units. Federal and state laws control the labelling of goods for sale in the supermarket, drugs, wine, liquor etc. For example, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations mandates that beer labels must have a non-metric volume statement. ^[16] The U.S. Fair Packaging and Labeling Act mandates "measurement must be in both metric and inch/pound units". Thus metric-only labels are forbidden by U.S. law. Similarly, a U.S. wine or liquor producer would be committing an offence if the product were delivered in non-metric bottle sizes. The Code of Federal Regulations requires wine bottled or packed on or after January 1, 1979 to be sold in only the following sizes: 3, 1.5, or 1 litre, 750, 500, 375, 187, 100, or 50 millilitres. Wine may also be bottled or packed in containers of 4 litres or larger if the containers are filled and labelled in quantities of whole litres (4 litres, 5 litres, 6 litres, etc.) ^[17]

[edit] Practicality in the United States

The United States is the world's largest economy.^[18] Other than enforcing the laws about labelling products with metric equivalents (discussed above), there is presently no significant push by the U.S. government to increase the use of the metric system among the American public, nor is there any significant populist movement among the U.S. public to fully adopt the metric system.

Another obstacle to metrication in the United States is its established system of title registration for real property. The metes and bounds descriptions of land in deeds and other title documents typically use English measures such as feet, rods, and furlongs. All of these systems of land measurement were in place well before there was any thought of converting any measurements in the United States to metric measurements. While often cited^{[citation needed]} as a problem in the United States, other countries have successfully dealt with it during their metrication programs.

Nonetheless, since the early 1980s, several significant segments of industry have changed to using the metric system in design work, notably, the automotive and electronics industries, in order to be able to compete effectively in a world market and to be able to use materials from global sources. One would be hard-pressed to find a non-metric fastener in any automobile produced by a U.S. manufacturer today.

[edit] Multiplication factors

When measuring, some countries, like the United States, have a preference to deal with whole numbers, or use vulgar fractions (e.g., ⅞ inches), to avoid the use of decimals fractions (e.g., 0.875). This allows for more accurate calculations, since there are no precision losses due to the lack of decimals to store values. This was particularly advantageous when electronic calculators were not available, so it was easier to use units of measure which had factors of 2, 3 and 4 to facilitate calculations with fractions.

However, only few parts of the imperial or U.S. customary systems actually feature the factor twelve, namely the inch-to-foot ratio and the rarely used troy ounce-to-troy pound ratio. Powers of two are more common, especially in volume measures, along with other factors including five, seven and eleven. Furthermore, with the invention of digital computers and calculators, the advantages of using non-decimal factors is greatly reduced. Even basic calculators today provide precisions of 8 or more digits, which more than compensates the loss of precision for routine conversions. Since the metric system uses the same base of the decimal system, calculations and conversions between metric units it is much easier using an electronic calculator or computer.

Some people mistakenly claim that non-metric units are systematically designed to base twelve, sixteen, etc. This is probably due to a confusion of base with factor. There is no inherent base in English units.

Factors used in non-metric units include:

• 3 (feet in a yard)
• 5½ (yards in a rod)
• 8 (furlongs in a mile)
• 12 (inches in a foot, troy ounces in a troy pound)
• 14 (pounds in a stone)
• 16 (avoirdupois ounces in a pound, U.S. fluid ounces in a U.S fluid pint)
• 20 (hundredweight in a ton, imperial fluid ounces in an imperial pint)
• 220 (yards in a furlong)
• 231 (cubic inches in a U.S. fluid gallon)

Metric practitioners counter to such arguments that they have a much better solution. Although the SI standard itself defines no preferred sizes, they indicated there exist several widely used guidelines tailored to the needs of particular fields.

An example often given is that of the modular coordination system used in the construction industry. This example is erroneous and fails to acknowledge that modular construction existed prior to metrication. Reference to the following link [1] will indicate that the original modular was 24 inches or 2 feet. Since metrication in many parts of the world this has been roughly converted to 600 mm, which is just over 23.6 inches.

When using modular coordination (a system of construction developed in the United Kingdom and the United States prior to metrication) major dimensions are expressed as multiples of feet or inches (e.g. 2" x 4" @ 6ft long) which leads to common component sizes such as 4ft x 6ft. Metrication as lead to many of these sizes being expressed as crude conversions to millimetres, expressed to the nearest millimetre. Hence plywood which was sold as 1/2 inch (i.e. 12.7 mm) thick is now sold as 13 mm thick plywood. The manufacturer's dies have not been altered, the plywood actually measures to 12.7 mm plus or minus manufacturing tolerances.

Metric practitioners call multiples of 300 mm or 600 mm the modular coordination system indicating that this is easily divisible by integers, such as 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc where as the unitary multiples of the foot are not, citing the fact that 2 ft is not readily divisible by 5, but this ignores the use of fractions in both metric systems and non-metric system, to express units that do not divide into whole units.

[edit] See also

• mesures usuelles
• Metrication
• Metrication in the United States
• Metrication in the United Kingdom
  • Metric Martyrs
• Units of measurement

[edit] External links

• Antimetric Sentiments (retrieved from archive.org)
• Trouble with the Metric System
• Presidential campaign could use some anti-metric mania
• The Trouble with the Meter
• European Union's Follies & Myths - Metrification
• Sleepwalking to tyranny

[edit] Anti-metrication groups online

• TYSK anti-metrication site
• British Weights and Measures Association
• Metric Martyrs
• SaveThePint.com
• The Dozenal Society
• English Anti-metrication site

[edit] Pro-metrication groups online

• UK Metric Association
• US Metric Association
• Metrication.US
• Go Metric!
• Go Metric America
• Metrication matters

[edit] References