Metrication controversy

The introduction of the metric system has faced some opposition in a number of countries over the past two centuries. Based on a previous 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. [cite web
url=http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm
title=Metric usage and metrication in other countries
accessdate=2007-01-14
pages=pp. 1-2] Citation
url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-g.html
title=The World Factbook
date=2007-09-06
publisher=Washington: Central Intelligence Agency
chapter=Appendix G - Weights and Measures
accessdate=2007-12-25] 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. [Warwick Cairns "About the Size of It", p. 145. (Pan Macmillan, 2007) ISBN 978-0230016286] 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.

Anti-metrication arguments

Natural evolution and human scale

One argument used by opponents of the metric system is that traditional systems of measurement were developed organically from actual use. [cite web|url=http://users.aol.com/footrule/ysone.htm|title=Past its Sell-By Date|last=Lovegreen|first=Alan|accessdate=2007-01-18|work=The Yardstick (#1)|publisher=British Weights and Measures Association] 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. [Scott, James C. "Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed", p. 25. (Yale University Press, 1998) ISBN 0-300-07016-0]

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. TraditionFact|date=May 2008 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"Fact|date=February 2007.

It is arguedWho|date=May 2008 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 movementWho|date=May 2008 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 defendersWho|date=May 2008 of the Fahrenheit scale claim (erroneously cite web|url=http://www.sizes.com/units/temperature_Fahrenheit.htm |title=Fahrenheit temperature scale |accessdate=2008-05-09 |date=2006-12-10 |publisher=Sizes, Inc ] ) that it was designed specifically for the purpose of weather-measurement.Fact|date=May 2008 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.

MembersWho|date=May 2008 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 claimedWho|date=May 2008, they have grown in a way that the metric system, with its rigid systemization, could not. ProponentsWho|date=May 2008 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.Fact|date=May 2008

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. [Alder, Ken. "A Revolution to Measure: The Political Economy of the Metric System in France," in "The Values of Precision", edited by M. Norton Wise. (Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 39-71. ISBN 0-691-01601-1] The metric system was devised in France as part of a proposal that attempted to make France "revenue-rich, militarily potent, and easily administered." [Alder, "supra", p. 48] 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. [Alder, p. 55]

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. [Scott, "Seeing Like a State", pp. 30-33.]

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 FranceFact|date=May 2008). 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." [Quoted in Witold Kula, "Measures and Men", tr. R. Szreter (Princeton, 1986: ISBN 0-691-05446-0), p. 286]

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.

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.cite web |url=http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20Downsizing.htm |title=The Great Metric Rip-Off |publisher=British Weights and Measures Association|accessdate=2007-01-13] 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.

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") [ cite news |url=http://www.pepsico.com/PEP_Company/History/index.cfm |publisher=PepsiCo |title=PepsiCo - Company - History |date=2006] , 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.

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.

Unit proliferation

An often citedFact|date=June 2008 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.

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.Fact|date=June 2008

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 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 frac|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 [ [http://inms-ienm.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/research/optical_frequency_si_e.html A Canadian standard laser] ] ) 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 val|632.99139822|u=nm in a vacuum).

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

Government compulsion

Another common argumentWho|date=May 2008 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, (but nine years after the original application). 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. 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. [ [http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article1764093.ece "The Times"] , May 9 2007]

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. [ [http://www.ttb.gov/beer/beer_regs.shtml Code of Federal Regulations Title 27 Part 7.27] ] The U.S. [http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/outline.html 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.) [ [http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_regs.shtml Code of Federal Regulations Title 27 Part 4.72] ]

Practicality in the United States

The United States is the world's largest economy. [cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html|title=CIA Factbook USA|accessdate=2007-03-08] 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 citedFact|date=June 2008 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.

Multiplication factors

Only few parts of the imperial or U.S. customary systems actually feature the factor twelve, namely the inch-to-foot ratio and the obsolete troy ounce-to-troy pound ratio. Powers of two are more common, especially in volume measures, along with other factors including (rarely) five, seven and eleven. It is true that 12 and 16 have more proper factors than 10, and this fact might have been an advantage before decimal numbers were widely understood, but modern education and the use of calculators mean that quarters (and thirds) of metric measurements can easily be calculated and written in decimal format to any required accuracy.

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.

ee also

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

External links

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20041119151854/http://www.forty2.com/~zb/antimetric.shtml Antimetric Sentiments] (retrieved from archive.org)
* [http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s11563.htm Trouble with the Metric System]
* [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah080100.asp/ Presidential campaign could use some anti-metric mania]
* [http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/14422/ The Trouble with the Meter]
* [http://www.kc3.co.uk/~dt/Metrication.htm European Union's Follies & Myths - Metrification]
* [http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000763.html Sleepwalking to tyranny]

Anti-metrication groups online

* [http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metrication/metrication.htm TYSK anti-metrication site]
* [http://www.bwmaonline.com/ British Weights and Measures Association]
* [http://www.metricmartyrs.co.uk/ Metric Martyrs]
* [http://www.cyphus.com/cyphus/stp.nsf SaveThePint.com]
* [http://www.dozenalsociety.org.uk The Dozenal Society]
* [http://home.clara.net/brianp/ametric.html English Anti-metrication site]

Pro-metrication groups online

* [http://www.metric.org.uk UK Metric Association]
* [http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger US Metric Association]
* [http://www.metrication.us Metrication.US ]
* [http://gometric.us/ Go Metric!]
* [http://gometricamerica.org/ Go Metric America]
* [http://www.metricationmatters.com/ Metrication matters]

References