ANTI-METRICATION

The introduction of the metric system has faced some opposition in a number of countries over the past two hundred years. Opponents generally cite apparent flaws in the metric system itself and cultural reasons for resisting change. Based on an old U.S. Metric Association survey it is commonly cited that only the United States of America, Liberia and Myanmar (Burma) have not officially adopted the metric system.^[1]

Some arguments of the anti-metrication movement

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.^[2] 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.^[3]
The traditional English units of measure, though standardized in themselves, at least reflect these original and organic methods of measuring. A number of these units, such as the ''foot'', share their name with physical objects indicating that they were based on these objects. Folklore relates the yard to the length between the nose and thumb of several kings of England. Tradition 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 oustretched 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".
The metric system, on the other hand, employs only a small number of base units (7), none of which are based on the human body. As such, their selection was made without regard to human scale. Other metric units are derived from these base units in a systematic way. For any particular quantity, larger metric units are always powers of ten multiplied by smaller metric units. Units for other quantities are formed by multiplying base units.
Members of the anti-metrication movement say that as traditional measurements have evolved over time, naturally picking up improvements to make them more useful to more people. Thus, it is claimed, they have grown in a way that the metric system, with its rigid systematicism, could not. Proponents of metrication will point out the advantages of a systematic approach such as that of the metric system's, arguing that it is worth forgoing these claimed naturally-evolved units. Also, it is worth pointing out that pre-metrification there was significant variation between units.

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.^[4] The metric system was devised in France as part of a proposal that attempted to make France "revenue-rich, militarily potent, and easily administered."^[5] It was intended as part of a consicous 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.^[6]
The imposition of the metric system, with its basic units originally derived from various scientific calculations removed from daily concerns, can be viewed in terms originated by James C. Scott as a form of high modernism. Local or customary measures do not serve the needs of a central government and its bureaucracy; they pose obstacles to the State's needs for census taking, taxation, and conscription.
In his 1998 monograph ''Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed'', 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.^[7]
While the metric system was imposed on France by the revolutionary government in the end of the eighteenth century, it failed to pre-empt 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). 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."^[8]
The imposition of schemes, including metrication or any other measurement system, present a dilemma faced by organizations of any size. Although higher efficiencies may be reached, they can potentially be offset by alienation, resentment, and even rebellious violence. In addition to that, new schemes may obliterate useful local knowledge, and end some popular traditions. The anti-metrication movement is a clear 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.
''See also:'' mesures usuelles

Price inflation

The adoption of metric measures in shops, especially in supermarkets, can provide an opportunity for traders to increase prices covertly.^[9]
An example of this is when liquor started to no longer be sold in fifths of a (U.S. liquid) gallon (exactly 0.2 gallons, approximately 757 ml), but instead in the international standard (750 ml, approximately 0.198 gallons), and the price remained the same.⁹ It should be noted that some Americans call a 750 ml bottle a "fifth".

Unit confusion

By design, the names of metric units use prefixes (such as deci- and deca-), which may look similar, and may confuse people unfamiliar with the system (e.g. dm and dam).
However, several traditional units have exactly the same name yet measure different amounts. A ''gallon'', for example, could be an Imperial gallon, a US dry gallon or a US wet gallon (not to mention any of the great number of obsolete gallons). This is also the case for the ton/tonne, ounce, and pound. Such confusion arguably makes non-metric units even more problematic than metric units. Indeed, the metric system can even be accused of worsening the situation by adopting the spelling tonne for the metric ton.

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. For traditional argument, however, the US system and the Imperial system are based upon older English units, which in turn have largely Roman and French (Avoirdupois) roots.
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 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. Now it is the length travelled by light in vacuum during the time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
It should be noted, though, that these redefinitions of the metre did not change its length, merely the way it was defined, so the redefinitions had no bearing on the everyday usage of the metric system. They merely meant that calculations could be made with extra decimal places of accuracy. This was not the case for imperial measurement changes. For example, the British gallon used to be 3.8 l, but is now about 4.5 l - an 18% change.

Aesthetics

Another complaint regarding the metric system is the alleged unpleasantness of its terms. Supporters of other systems claim that, being designed for scientific use, most metric terms are “cold”, “harsh” and lack the character of their traditional counterparts.
For example, most common traditional measurements (except for 'fluid ounce' and 'half-barrel') are single-syllable (‘inch’, ‘foot’, ‘yard’, ‘mile’, ‘ounce’, ‘pound’, ‘ton’, ‘cup’, ‘pint’, ‘quart’) or two syllables ('gallon', 'bushel', 'barrel', 'hogshead', 'acre', 'pica', 'furlong', 'cubit', 'candle', 'fathom') which would be more “appealing” to the tongue and ear than polysyllabic terms like ‘centimetre’ or ‘millilitre’. In science fiction and some military circles, this is reflected by the use of 'klick' in place of 'kilometre'.
In some English speaking countries, such as Britain, a millimetre is often called a “mil” or '”mils” (plural). Likewise millilitres are shortened to “mils”. However in the United States, the mil refers to thousandths of an inch, though that usage has been declining among technical users, in continues in common parlance, especially for usages such as plastic sheeting or bags.
In English, the names of the metric units, it is claimed, with their prefixes of multiple origins, are imperfectly domesticated loanwords. The corresponding traditional units, though not all of Anglo-Saxon etymology, have been in use in English for a very long time. They are monosyllables that conform to the rules for native words in English spelling.^[10] The irregular correspondence between spelling and pronunciation of a foreign word like ''litre'', by contrast, marks it as an intruder.^[11] Some of the names of metric units in English give rise to variation in pronunciation, ''kilometre'' sometimes is rendered with stress on the first syllable but the pronunciation stressing the second is also quite frequent.^[12]
While there are those who claim this objection is mere parochialism, its existence can be helpful in understanding how much people “hold dear” the units they grew up with, and the difficulties encountered in the metrication process. In countries that have recently gone metric, the traditional terms continue to be used metaphorically and in fixed expressions, and expressions like “a gram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure” or “I was a million kilometres away (in my thoughts)” or “Due to the heavy traffic jam, the cars just centimetred their way down the road” have not suddenly become commonplace. However, in countries that metricated a long time ago, expressions involving the metric system are more common: “Don’t feel like you are 3 metres tall” (don't overestimate yourself), “one gram of experience is worth of a kilo of theory”, “millimetric precision”, “the traffic jam slithered ahead cent by cent” and so on.

Government compulsion

Another basic argument 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. The idea of compulsory standards is hardly new, however; in the mid-1820s, for example, the Act for ascertaining and establishing Uniformity of Weights and Measures, royal assent given by George IV, consolidated the various gallons in use at the time and established a new Imperial gallon, simultaneously prohibiting the use of the older units. Compulsory reforms, e.g. the introduction of the euro, in general have been proven to be much more efficient (quicker, cheaper) than voluntary ones without lesser satisfaction throughout the population afterwards.
In the UK there is widespread non-compliance by small-scale fruit and vegetable traders with the requirement to price in metric. Display of “supplementary units” (the equivalent Imperial price) is permitted (until 31 December 2009) as long as they are no larger than, nor more prominent than, the legally-binding metric price. In many towns, fruit and vegetable markets display prominent signs in Imperial units, with a very small metric price beside them. There is also some degree of non-compliance by smaller vendors of carpets, despite the great simplification that metrication affords to carpet-buying. Large supermarkets in the UK have also attempted to undermine the metrication process. They place small metric price signs on the edges of shelves and use these to claim they are pricing in metric. However, all around the store are very large signs advertising the products purely in Imperial units. They claim that the law requires them to price in metric but does not require them to advertise in metric. So far, Trading Standards officers have not taken a supermarket to court over this issue and thus its legality remains untested.
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 government policy since 1953 and the process was initiated by the government establishing the Metrication Board in 1969, four years before joining the EC. In more recent times, anti-metrication supporters have asserted that the 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 British shopkeepers who said that their human rights had been violated.
In the US, 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 US Code of Federal Regulations Title 27 Part 7.27 mandates that beer labels must have a non-metric volume statement. The US Fair Packaging and Labeling Act mandates "measurement must be in both metric and inch/pound units". Thus metric only labels are forbidden by US law.
Similarly, a US wine or liquor producer would be committing an offence if the product were delivered in non-metric bottle sizes. Regulation 27 CFR 4.73 requires wine bottled or packed on or after January 1, 1979 to be sold in only the following sizes: 3 litres, 1.5 litres, 1 litre, 750 millilitres, 500 millilitres, 375 millilitres, 187 millilitres, 100 millilitres, 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 even liters (4 litres, 6 litres, etc.)

Practicality in the United States

The United States is the world's largest economy.^[13] Other than enforcing the laws about labelling products with metric equivalents (discussed above), there is presently no significant push by the US government to increase the use of the metric system among the American public, nor is there any significant populist movement among the US public to fully adopt the metric system.
One major 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 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 US manufacturer today.

Multiplication factors

When measuring, some countries, like the United States, have a preference to deal with whole numbers, or use fractions (e.g., 7/8 inches), to avoid the use of decimals fractions (e.g., 0.825). 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 where not available. Thus, back then it was easier to use units of measure which used small numbers as factors (e.g., numbers such as 2, 3, 4) to facilitate calculations with fractions.
Dividing by three is simple in a base twelve system but difficult with a base ten system. Dividing by five, on the other hand, is simple in a base ten system but difficult with a base twelve system. If you want to take a quarter in a base ten system, you have to use one hundred to avoid getting a fraction. Twelve, on the other hand, divides by four easily.
However, only few parts of the Imperial or US 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 lost 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.

in decimal	in decimal	in decimal	in decimal
8³ = 512	10³ = 1000	12³ = 1728	16³ = 4096
8² = 64	10² = 100	12² = 144	16² = 256
8	10	12	16
8/2 = 4	10/2 = 5	12/2 = 6	16/2 = 8
8/3 = 2.(6)	10/3 = 3.(3)	12/3 = 4	16/3 = 5.(3)
8/4 = 2	10/4 = 2.5	12/4 = 3	16/4 = 4
8/5 = 1.6	10/5 = 2	12/5 = 2.4	16/5 = 3.2
8/6 = 1.(3)	10/6 = 1.(6)	12/6 = 2	16/6 = 2.(6)
8/7 = 1.(142857)	10/7 = 1.(428571)	12/7 = 1.(714285)	16/7 = 2.(285714)
8/8 = 1	10/8 = 1.25	12/8 = 1.5	16/8 = 2
8/9 = 0.(8)	10/9 = 1.(1)	12/9 = 1.(3)	16/9 = 1.(7)
8/10 = 0.8	10/10 = 1	12/10 = 1.2	16/10 = 1.6
8/11 = 0.(72)	10/11 = 0.(90)	12/11 = 1.(09)	16/11 = 1.(45)
8/12 = 0.(6)	10/12 = 0.8(3)	12/12 = 1	16/12 = 1.(3)
8/13 = 0.(615384)	10/13 = 0.(769230)	12/13 = 0.(923076)	16/13 = 1.(230769)
8/14 = 0.(571428)	10/14 = 0.(714285)	12/14 = 0.(857142)	16/14 = 1.(142857)
8/15 = 0.5(3)	10/15 = 0.(6)	12/15 = 0.8	16/15 = 1.0(6)
8/16 = 0.5	10/16 = 0.625	12/16 = 0.75	16/16 = 1

in octal	in decimal	in dozenal	in hexadecimal
10³ = 1000	10³ = 1000	10³ = 1000	10³ = 1000
10² = 100	10² = 100	10² = 100	10² = 100
10	10	10	10
10/2 = 4	10/2 = 5	10/2 = 6	10/2 = 8
10/3 = 2.(52)	10/3 = 3.(3)	10/3 = 4	10/3 = 5.(5)
10/4 = 2	10/4 = 2.5	10/4 = 3	10/4 = 4
10/5 = 1.(4631)	10/5 = 2	10/5 = 2.(4972)	10/5 = 3.(3)
10/6 = 1.(25)	10/6 = 1.(6)	10/6 = 2	10/6 = 2.(A)
10/7 = 1.(1)	10/7 = 1.(428571)	10/7 = 1.(86A351)	10/7 = 2.(492)
10/10 = 1	10/8 = 1.25	10/8 = 1.6	10/8 = 2
10/11 = 0.(70)	10/9 = 1.(1)	10/9 = 1.4	10/9 = 1.(C71)
10/12 = 0.(6314)	10/10 = 1	10/A = 1.(2497)	10/A = 1.(9)
10/13 = 0.(5642721350)	10/11 = 0.(90)	10/B = 1.(1)	10/B = 1.(745D1)
10/14 = 0.(52)	10/12 = 0.8(3)	10/10 = 1	10/C = 1.(5)
10/15 = 0.(4730)	10/13 = 0.(769230)	10/11 = 0.(B0)	10/D = 1.(3B1)
10/16 = 0.(4)	10/14 = 0.(714285)	10/12 = 0.(A35186)	10/E = 1.(249)
10/17 = 0.(4210)	10/15 = 0.(6)	10/13 = 0.(9724)	10/F = 1.(1)
10/20 = 0.4	10/16 = 0.625	10/14 = 0.9	10/10 = 1

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, US fluid ounces in a US fluid pint)

★ 20 (hundredweight in a ton, imperial fluid ounces in an imperial pint)

★ 231 (cubic inches in a US fluid gallon)
Metric practitioners counter to such arguments that they have a much better solution. Although, the SI standard itself defines no preferred sizes, there exist several widely used guidelines tailored to the needs of particular fields. For example, in the construction industry, a system known as modular coordination is commonly used.
When using modular coordination major dimensions that are multiples of 300 mm or 600 mm are preferred. This leads to component sizes such as 1200 mm × 2400 mm. Any multiple of 600 mm can be divided by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 25, 30 without any need for fractions. A comparable length in English units would be two feet which does not divide easily by multiples of five. Other such guidelines for preferred numbers include the ''Renard series'' or the system of metric paper sizes.
Another commonly quoted reason against metrication is the difficulties that conversion to and from old units cause. For everyday usage a 500-gram pound, 4-litre gallon and 25-millimetre inch could suffice, and have been used.

External links

★ The Inch Perfect Page

★ Kentucky Demetrication

★ TYSK anti-metrication site

★ Life After Metrification - A light hearted look at the arrogant English

★ Metrication - the wilful destruction of culture

★ Antimetric Sentiments (retrieved from archive.org)

★ Trouble with the Metric System

★ Presidential campaign could use some anti-metric mania

★ The Trouble with the Meter

★ Europen Union's Follies & Myths - Metrification

★ Sleepwalking to tyranny

★ Anti-metric Mailing List

Anti-metrication groups online

★ British Weights and Measures Association

★ Metric Martyrs

★ Salish Indians Against the Metric System

★ SaveThePint.com

Pro-metrication groups online

★ UK Metric Association

★ US Metric Association

★ Metrication.US

★ Go Metric!

★ Go Metric America

★ One Metre: Canada's metrication completion page

★ Metrication matters

References

In standard citation format

1. Metric usage and metrication in other countries
2. PAST ITS SELL-BY DATE
3. 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
4. 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
5. Alder, ''supra'', p. 48
6. Alder, p. 55
7. Scott, ''Seeing Like a State'', pp. 30-33.
8. Quoted in Witold Kula, ''Measures and Men'', tr. R. Szreter (Princeton, 1986: ISBN 0-691-05446-0), p. 286
9. The Great Metric Rip-Off
10. According to the ''Random House Dictionary of the English Language'', the word "pound" existed in English before AD 900, and has cognates in Old Norse and Old High German. Likewise, the words "inch" and "ounce" are attested in English before AD 1000.
11. According to the ''Random House Dictionary of the English Language'', "litre" was borrowed directly from French and appears first in English between 1800 and 1810. It is moreover pronounced [] as opposed to the expected pronunciation

Bullets

★ Goldberg, Jonah (2000), 'Presidential campaign could use some anti-metric mania', Jewish World Review

★ P., Brian (2004), 'Metrication - the wilful destruction of culture', English Weights & Measures

★ Tavernor, Robert (2007), 'Smoot's Ear: The Measure of Humanity', [1]

★ Tenner, Ed (2005), 'The Trouble with the Meter, Why the metric system may never rule.', Technology Review

★ Phillips, Melanie (2002), 'Sleepwalking to tyranny', MelaniePhillips.com

★ Cairns, Warwick (2007), 'About the Size of It', WarwickCairns.com

This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.

psst.. try this: add to faves

	Hotel Valley Ho (Caf� ZuZu, VH Spa)
	Scottsdale CVB
	Interpro Travel Services Inc.
	traverse jamaica
	Pelican Executive Suites
	Time Out for Touring Inc.
	Travelonly - Dave Corless
	Travelonly - Allan Jenkins
	Heavenly Paradise Getaways
	Temptation Resort Spa Cancun