20th may, Historical date!
David Wilson
davidwwilson at comcast.net
Thu May 12 02:31:27 CEST 2005
Back in the 1970's, there was indeed agreement that we should all move in
the direction of worldwide adoption of the metric standard. A lot of grand
gestures were made at the time, including rebasing US weights and measures
on the metric system. However, true adoption of the metric system in the
US, which demands not only learning and thinking in terms of the metric
system, but using it in preference to the US system, has largely failed.
In the scientific arena, the metric system has been standard for quite some
time. This is good in the sense that it provides a common ground for
scientific measurement around the world and proves the metric system is
workable, but bad in that the scientific community now has little interest
in promoting the system communally, having already arrived.
In business, it is agreed that metricization would grease the wheels of
commerce. Adoption of metric units for shipping and billing materials
certainly decreases conversion costs by leveraging the ubiquitous base-10
numeration system. But the main benefit of metricization is derived from
producing goods in quantities that can be sold worldwide. Instead of making
1 lb 10 oz boxes of salt for sale in the US and 500 gm (sic?) boxes for sale
in the U.K, it would be cheaper and easier in the long run to make only 500
gm boxes for a worldwide market, which could be relabelled for sale wherever
needed.
But that's in the long run. In the short run, there is a lot of
manufacturing equipment geared towards production of goods in US units, and
retooling or replacing that equipment is expensive. Also, any US company
that adopts metric sizing must sell its goods on the same shelf with
competing products packaged in more familiar US units, which will presumably
put it at competitive disadvantage. The costs of metricization are borne
heavily by firms operating primarily within the US markets, while the
benefits are reaped primarily by firms operating in global markets.
Nevertheless, the 1970's push for metricization met with some limited
success. Many foreign manufacturers were able to find US markets for
products that were already metricized, such as automobiles and heavy
equipment (for which reason, Average American has both US and metric socket
wrenches in his tool arsenal). Most firms made the token gesture gesture of
adding metric equivalents to their packaging. Probably the most remarkable
example of true metricization was the introduction of liter-sized beverage
bottles onto store shelves, though 2-liter soda bottles still sit side by
side with 12-ounce cans.
Finally, there is the cultural issue. While the metric system has benefits,
the US system is present and perfectly workable. We get along fine with our
mm/dd/yy, a.m. and p.m, cups and teaspoons, feet, inches and miles. What
benefit would the average American actually derive from metricization? For
the most part, there would be little difference. We would buy oil in liters
instead of quarts, pills with mg instead of grains of medicine, flour in 2.5
kg bags instead of 5-pound bags, but we would still dump the oil in our
engine, take two pills at bedtime, and dump the flour in the canister (then
use our cups and tablespoons to fetch it out). The few times it did matter,
it would simply be an annoyance to have to adjust our thinking to the new
units (1200 km, how many miles is that?). We start with a workable set of
units, go through a painful adjustment period, and end up with a workable
set of units. Hmmm.
In short, my argument is that metrization is a painful process for the
average American citizen and American business, with benefits accruing
mainly to multinational business interests.
Good luck with the metric dates too. It's all good to point a finger at the
backwards Americans, so let's see the Europeans ante up and change the way
they write dates.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Guy" <rkg at cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
To: "Alonso Del Arte" <alonso.delarte at gmail.com>
Cc: <alexandre.wajnberg at skynet.be>; <seqfan at ext.jussieu.fr>; "Math Fun"
<math-fun at mailman.xmission.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: 20th may, Historical date!
>A little over 30 years ago, almost all nations
> agreed (when else has this happened? --
> over the postal system, perhaps -- not over
> copyright ?) on the (adoption and) use of
> the ``metric system''.
>
> I quote from the Metric Style Guide:
>
> For example, April 7, 1975, is
> expressed as 1975 04 07.
> Alternative ways of writing this
> numeric date are 1975-04-07 or
> 19750407.
>
> Times can be appended, using the 24-hour
> clock. R.
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2005, Alonso Del Arte wrote:
>
>> As much sense as DDMMYYYY makes (smallest unit to largerst unit), many
>> of us live where MMDDYYYY is more prevalent, or even MMDDYY, as well
>> as miles and gallons. So here 20 May 2005 is 5/20/2005, hardly special
>> from the point of view of symmetry. Alonso
>>
>> On 5/10/05, alexandre.wajnberg at skynet.be <alexandre.wajnberg at skynet.be>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello dear Seqfans and friends,
>>>
>>> Nicolas Graner (member of the Oulipo litterary movement) has devised a
>>> ...
>>
More information about the SeqFan
mailing list