The United States should adopt the Metric System

Thanks for taking part. I'll begin by addressing the components of your response with which I take exception, but not before acknowledging that at least one of your arguments had not occurred to me. I think I have a convincing case against it and the others however; it remains to be seen if I am alone in this conviction. I agree that the only way to change an entire county's system of weights and measures is through legislation, but at this point our views diverge. As a society we regularly give up certain rights in the knowledge that by doing so a greater good is enacted: a good example is the sobriety checkpoint we all see around holidays. Clearly we don't live a country where the police can stop you and search you for drugs, weapons, or seditious material without probable cause. But in the supreme court ruling Chief Justice Rehnquist acknowledges the 4th amendment contravention but then opines, (the) "minimal intrusion on individual liberties must be weighed against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks." [1] So the question is one of degree: how bad must the consequences be if we don't enact laws requiring metric compliance? If there were no consequences whatsoever nobody would want such laws: Without consequences laws are completely arbitrary. I would fight against a law making blue shirts illegal, for example. And I imagine so would most people. But the consequences are far from negligible, as I'll explain later. You may be right in positing the three reasons for pressure not to convert. I don't think they are the only possible reasons, however. Numerology, superstition, and anti French sentiment were all corralled in 1876 when Charles Latimer organized the first blockage of the kind of legislation we're discussing. Referring often to the "French Metric system," Latimer stated, "it is to be an overthrow of everything Anglo Saxon…" [2] To anyone who doubts this kind of blurry rhetoric would work today I suggest they reconsider their position over a nice plate of Freedom Fries. Finally, your claim that SI is not a superior system is not supported by evidence. That an English door remains 1981x762mm says nothing about SI and everything about the good decision to keep doors a standard size. I also disagree that 120 is more easily divided using fractions than 100. What's 70 percent of 120? What's 34 percent of 100? For me at least the latter is a much simpler sum. To claim that legislation is silly or morally questionable requires that the consequences, ongoing as they are, must be minimal. Again, this is not the case. I'll wait to explore why SI is a superior system for a future round where, in the context of how terrible a system our current one is, the contrast will make a stronger point. I hope you'll allow this deference and I assure you I won't neglect your argument here. I will state simply that it is false. It boils down to time and money, and time costs money, as they say. It's impossible to come up with a precise figure, but the following estimates are made in the shadow of one incontrovertible fact: the rest of the world uses metric. While merely an appeal to emotion it might be useful to know that only three countries have not converted: Liberia, Burma (Myanmar), and the US. I will not bother to research the ratio of trade done with these countries to the rest of the world combined. I will guess that it is a very small number. The following numbers come from what seems to be the state of the art as far as research in this area goes. This paper cites many primary sources but I'll refer to it rather than its sources for simplicity's sake. It is citation [3]. In a 1915 lawsuit Jos. V. Collins some economists crunched the numbers and arrived at a total annual loss of $315 000 000.00 per year. [3] While still a large number today, adjusted for inflation this figure was $6 000 000 000.00 per year in 2005 dollars. [3] In a peer reviewed paper from 1992 Richard Phelps determined that the current practice of teaching two systems of measures results in a full year of teaching time lost to each student. I speculate that this is non-trivial. The author of a very informative summary paper concludes that based on our total educational expenditure this costs us over 8 billion dollars each year. Clearly these are not insignificant numbers. I argue that they are the epitome of "non-negligible," and as such satisfy the demand that our laws remain non-arbitrary. Rather than morally questionable, enacting such a change is fiscally responsible. Ignoring it better suits my opponents description. I look forward to your response. ---- [1] http://www.thenewspaper.com... [2] http://query.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.google.com... (the original source is behind a paywall. Here is a free version.)