Written: April 29, 2009
While the 95 percent of the world has converted to the metric system, the United States stuck with inches, feet, ounces, pounds, Fahrenheit, etc. Only two more countries accompany us in this resistance against adopting the International System of Units (SI): Liberia and Myanmar (Elliott-Gower par.1). After more than 200 years, we are still “on the other side”. We need to fix it ASAP.
The very first opportunity to go metric was missed in the early 1800s, when “President Thomas Jefferson, an amateur scientist and mathematician, recognized the merits of metric, and there was a lot of pro-French, anti-British sentiment in the country” (par.4). Then, in nineteen century, the US government authorized the official use of metric measures, alongside British measures in 1866 and signed the Treaty of the Meter in 1875. After that, almost one hundred years nothing had happened, and only in 1968 the government authorized a three-year study on the feasibility of adopting the metric system, resulting in the 1971 blockbuster "A Metric America: A Decision Whose Time Has Come". Then, in 1975, the United States passed the Metric Conversion Act, which established the U.S. Metric Board (disestablished in 1982) and asked the private sector to make progress toward the metric system (amended in 1988 when the private sector said no thanks). And finally in 1991 the US required all government agencies to file an annual report on their efforts to go metric. It is 2009 now, and there hasn't been much activity in that area since last century (par.6).The metric conversion problem is a binary one, i.e. while we had some progress, the US as a whole is still not on the metric system. So what are the reasons that we have such a slow progress, and why people don’t support metrification widely?
It is very hard to break traditions. Of course, traditions are very important, but what kind of traditions? For example, such great civilization as Incas did not invent a wheel, so they had to drag their huge stones from quarries to construction sites in the most inefficient way. On other hand, once upon a time, we accepted water heaters, soap, and toilet paper, and have come to even enjoy them! (Kaye). So a distinction must be made between traditions and simple inertia. Some people just do not want to change anything if they can not see any benefits. Yes, maybe there are not such visible advantages in using metric system as in Kaye’s examples with toilet paper and hot water, but if one tries a little bit, one will see many benefits.
Metrification is a way to improve math scores and, as a result, be competitive in sciences and have a workforce that is ready “to speak the right language” in the global marketplace. Richard Slettvet, a special education teacher in Edmonds School District, says: “Why do American 15-year-olds rank 15th among nations in math? (
http://www.edin08.com/). It’s not because they (or their teachers) are less intelligent than their international peers, but because Americans tend to associate gallons and miles with apple pie and motherhood, and hence are loathe to let go. Customary measurement and its partner in crime, mathematical operations using fractions, are like twin 10-pound handicaps hung from the necks of American students.” American elementary school students must learn both customary and metric length, weight and volume, unlike European students, who need to learn only metric measurements and therefore learn them better (Slettvet par.4).
The metric system is simple, logical and coherent. Some people probably think that it is difficult to learn SI. But this is just wrong. Indeed, math in metrics is much easier. Like pennies to dimes to dollars, all metric units are based on the power of 10. If we build a cube with a side length of 1 millimeter, it will hold a volume of 1 cubic milliliter of water, and that water will weight 1 gram. “Child’s play!” (par.6).
Another very important advantage of the metric system is that it avoids confusing dual-use of terms, such as the inch-pound system’s use of ounces to measure both weight and volume. The metric system is also simpler than the inch-pound one because it uses a single unit to measure the same quantity. For example, volume in SI is measured in single cubic units, while in the English system it is measured in teaspoons, fluid ounces, cups, pints, quarts, and gallons.
Understandably, for someone taught in the English system, switching to the metric system involves some necessary initial work, but like the learning to ride a bicycle, it becomes natural after some practice. “And never again dreaded word problems like this one involving mixed numbers and fraction division: “Maria has 6 ½ cups of flour. How many batches of cookies can she bake if each bath requires 1 ¾ cups?” (par.4).
Well, some people may say that going metric is not the most pressing issue in the US now, that there are other more compelling national priorities like dealing with illegal immigrants, terrorism, global warming, economic crisis, etc. All true, but if one follows this logic, there will never be a good time to convert to the metric system.
Definitely, the conversion to the SI will cost a lot of money, but “Once we go metric, we will even make sure that all our spacecraft reach Mars, and even galaxies that are light-years from us, because once and for all we will prevent the likes of the horrible embarrassment that NASA suffered in 1999: One group on a project measured distances in feet and miles; the other used meters and kilometers. The result: a $125 million Mars orbiter went AWOL in outer space. Metrification would eliminate such costly mistakes, and space travel would become affordable”. (Kh par.6). In today’s global economy being “exceptional” costs us too much.
Granted, some progress towards conversion to SI was made in this country. Many US businesses, especially exporters, already started using the metric system, and they recognize disadvantages of the continuous duality in measurements very well. Many industries convert to SI as they develop new products and as their old equipment wears out which allows them to minimize the conversion expenses and become more competitive internationally. At the same time, US consumers may be surprised at the number of items in everyday life that have been produced in SI. People routinely buy 1- and 2-liter soda bottles, take vitamins and medicines measured in milligrams, sip 750-milliliter bottles of wine, stare at computer screens measured in centimeters, use photographic lenses measured in millimeters, drive cars with KPH/MPH speedometers and so on…(Elliott-Gower par.7).
The metric measurements have already penetrated peoples’ lives, but Americans are still dependent on the two systems of measurements. This situation is inefficient and confusing. A short-term, nation-wide investment in metric conversion would eliminate the costs of using two measurement systems and provide long-term return on an efficient single-system metric economy. “There just hasn’t been the political will to embrace metrification. It’s not the sort of thing that inspires Homeric rhetoric. Moreover, like raising taxes, it may just seem un-American and, well, too dang foreign” (par.8). But times have changed, and the US no longer overwhelmingly dominates world trade. “America can survive and even prosper without the metric system, but not without the rest of the world” (par.9). Since trade and communication with other nations became critical to the health of the US economy, official adoption of the International System of Units is no longer a choice, but a necessity for the United States, and the sooner, the better.
