Metrication opposition: Difference between revisions
replaced (archived) ColoState.edu url, which was providing web hosting to the USMA (and wasn't the publisher either) with the USMA's own url. |
→Government compulsion: unsourced |
||
(51 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2020}} |
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2020}} |
||
{{Multiple issues| |
|||
{{more citations needed|date=September 2011}} |
{{more citations needed|date=September 2011}} |
||
{{Unbalanced|date=July 2023}} |
|||
}} |
|||
<!--- |
<!--- |
||
CAUTION TO EDITORS: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. This article is not a place for you to make pro- or anti-metrication arguments. Readers are interested, not in your personal opinion, but in faithful reporting of statements made by notable sources or news events. |
|||
---> |
|||
The spread of [[metrication]] around the world in the last two centuries has been met with both support and opposition.{{where|date=April 2015}} |
|||
CAUTION TO EDITORS: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. This article is not a place for you to make pro- or anti-metrication arguments. Readers are interested, not in your personal opinion, but in faithful reporting of statements made by notable sources or news events. |
|||
==Metrication== |
|||
---> |
|||
{{main|Metrication}} |
|||
The spread of [[metrication]] around the world in the last two centuries has been met with both support and opposition.{{where|date=April 2015}} All countries except [[Liberia]] have adopted the Metric System as their primary system of measurement, although Liberia has seen some introduction of metric units. The United States of America [[Metre Convention|officially accepted]] the Metric System in 1878 but [[United States customary units]],{{efn|Also known as "English units", though these units are not used in England}} albeit [[International yard and pound|defined by reference]] to the [[SI system of units]], remain ubiquitous outside the science and technology sector. The metric system has been largely adopted in the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]] and [[Ireland]], without having fully displaced [[imperial units]] from all areas of life. In other Anglophone countries such as [[Australia]], [[Hong Kong]], [[New Zealand]] and [[Singapore]] and [[New Zealand]], imperial units have been formally deprecated and are no longer officially sanctioned for use in trade.<ref name="World Factbook">{{cite book|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-g.html|title=The World Factbook |
|||
The United States of America [[Metre Convention|officially accepted]] the Metric System in 1878 but [[United States customary units]] remain ubiquitous outside the science and technology sector. The metric system has been largely adopted in [[Canada]] and [[Ireland]], and partially adopted in the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Hong Kong]], without having fully displaced [[imperial units]] from all areas of life. In other Anglophone countries such as [[Australia]], [[Singapore]] and [[New Zealand]], imperial units have been formally deprecated and are no longer officially sanctioned for use.<ref name="World Factbook">{{cite book|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-g.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070613023743/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-g.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=13 June 2007|title=The World Factbook |
|||
|date=6 September 2007|publisher=Washington: Central Intelligence Agency|chapter=Appendix G - Weights and Measures|accessdate=25 December 2007 |
|date=6 September 2007|publisher=Washington: Central Intelligence Agency|chapter=Appendix G - Weights and Measures|accessdate=25 December 2007 |
||
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://usma.org/metrication-in-other-countries |title=Metrication in other countries: Metrication status and history |publisher=[[US Metric Association]] | date= 15 July 2015 |accessdate=28 April 2020 |
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://usma.org/metrication-in-other-countries |title=Metrication in other countries: Metrication status and history |publisher=[[US Metric Association]] | date= 15 July 2015 |accessdate=28 April 2020 }}</ref> |
||
==Technical arguments== |
==Technical arguments== |
||
===Natural evolution and human scale=== |
===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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://users.aol.com/footrule/ysone.htm|title=Past its Sell-By Date|last=Lovegreen|first=Alan|accessdate=18 January 2007|work=The Yardstick (#1)|publisher=British Weights and Measures Association}}</ref> Early measures were human in scale, intuitive, and [[Accuracy and precision|imprecise]], as illustrated by still-current expressions such as ''a stone's throw'', ''within earshot'', ''a cartload'' or ''a handful''. |
One argument used by opponents of the metric system is that traditional systems of measurement were developed organically from actual use.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://users.aol.com/footrule/ysone.htm|title=Past its Sell-By Date|last=Lovegreen|first=Alan|accessdate=18 January 2007|work=The Yardstick (#1)|publisher=British Weights and Measures Association}}</ref> Early measures were human in scale, intuitive, and [[Accuracy and precision|imprecise]], as illustrated by still-current expressions such as ''a stone's throw'', ''within earshot'', ''a cartload'' or ''a handful''. These measurements' developers, living and working in an era before modern science, gave fundamental priority to ease of learning and use; moreover, the variation permissible within these measurements allowed them to be relational and commensurable: a request for a judgment of measure allowed for a variety of answers, depending on context. In parts of Malaysia, villagers asked the distance to the next village were likely<ref name="Scott" /> to respond with ''three rice cookings''; an approximation of the time it would take to travel there on foot. Everyone is assumed to know both how long it takes to cook rice, and how fast a person walks. Nominally standard units were also subject to contextual variations. The ''[[aune]]'', a French [[ell]] used for measuring cloth, depended on the sort of cloth being measured, taking [[price]] and [[scarcity]] into account: an ''aune'' of [[silk]] was shorter than an ''aune'' of [[linen]].<ref name="Scott">{{cite book|last= Scott |first= James C. |authorlink= James C. Scott |title= [[Seeing Like a State|Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed]] |page= 25 |publisher= [[Yale University Press]] |year= 1998 |isbn= 0-300-07016-0 |oclc= 37392803}}</ref> |
||
Nowadays most non-metric units are standardised to fixed values, which eliminates the disadvantage of imprecision while retaining the advantage of human scale. For example, the [[advocacy group]] [[British Weights and Measures Association]] has argued that metrication led to greater complexity for consumers accustomed to imperial units because, unlike the ounce, a single gram is too small a measurement in everyday life.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.bwmaonline.com/Death%20of%20Measurement.htm |title= BWMA/Consumers - Death of Measurement |publisher= [[British Weights and Measures Association]] |date= 15 July 2007 |accessdate=17 November 2010}}</ref> |
Nowadays most non-metric units are standardised to fixed values, which eliminates the disadvantage of imprecision while retaining the advantage of human scale. For example, the [[advocacy group]] [[British Weights and Measures Association]] has argued that metrication led to greater complexity for consumers accustomed to imperial units because, unlike the ounce, a single gram is too small a measurement in everyday life.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.bwmaonline.com/Death%20of%20Measurement.htm |title= BWMA/Consumers - Death of Measurement |publisher= [[British Weights and Measures Association]] |date= 15 July 2007 |accessdate=17 November 2010}}</ref> |
||
===Divisibility=== |
===Divisibility=== |
||
Metric opponents cite easier division of customary units as one reason not to adopt a decimalised system. |
Metric opponents cite easier division of customary units as one reason not to adopt a decimalised system. For example, those customary units with ratios of 12 and 16 have more [[proper factor]]s, {2, 3, 4, 6} and {2, 4, 8}, than the metric 10: {2, 5}. However, easily divisible numbers can be selected for use with metric units, e.g. 300 mm and its multiples. The number of times that these odd fractional numbers would come up has also been pointed out as a counterargument; in construction and engineering, for example, measurements would not only be likely to be in integers to begin with, but would also rarely be needed to convert to another unit.{{citation needed|date=May 2022}} |
||
The main disadvantage cited by critics of customary measures is the proliferation of units, their (sometimes) non-unique definition and the difficulty in remembering the ratios between them.{{citation needed|reason= |
The main disadvantage cited by critics of customary measures is the proliferation of units, their (sometimes) non-unique definition and the difficulty in remembering the ratios between them.{{citation needed|reason=There are many reasons for metrication, and this is an oversimplification; we need a reference that actually studies what critics have said.|date=January 2019}} |
||
===Duplication in naming and usage=== |
===Duplication in naming and usage=== |
||
A common argument for the metric system is that it avoids duplication of naming and the associated confusion. The most commonly cited example is [[pound (force)]] vs [[pound (mass)]], which have the same symbol and are both commonly written simply as "pounds", which can lead to costly and dangerous shipping and engineering errors. Opponents of metrication |
A common argument for the metric system is that it avoids duplication of naming and the associated confusion. The most commonly cited example is [[pound (force)]] vs [[pound (mass)]], which have the same symbol and are both commonly written simply as "pounds", which can lead to costly and dangerous shipping and engineering errors. Opponents of metrication argue that this issue only occurs due to misuse; when used 'properly', there is no cause for confusion. |
||
Separately, it is also argued that customary units feature too many overlapping units. The most commonly cited examples are in liquid volume, where metric has simply [[litres]] while customary has [[gallons]], [[pints]], [[quarts]], [[fluid ounces]], and the rarely used [[gill (unit)|gill]], and [[minim (unit)|minim]], all of which cover volumes of liquid in similar ranges. Metrication opponents |
Separately, it is also argued that customary units feature too many overlapping units. The most commonly cited examples are in liquid volume, where metric has simply [[litres]] while customary has [[gallons]], [[pints]], [[quarts]], [[fluid ounces]], and the rarely used [[gill (unit)|gill]], and [[minim (unit)|minim]], all of which cover volumes of liquid in similar ranges. Metrication opponents argue that this allows for easily listing amounts that are awkward in metric (e.g. 1 liquid pint = 568.3 mL in the UK and 473 mL in the US) but are commonly used and avoids "excessive" use of decimals and fractions. These problems however would disappear if [[metrication]] continues and they cease to become as common, replaced with a metric equivalent. For example, a pint is often rounded down to 0.5 L, otherwise sometimes rounded up to 0.6 L. |
||
===Industry-specific product sizing=== |
===Industry-specific product sizing=== |
||
Metric opposed artisans and practitioners may be concerned by certain dimensions being less memorable with metric units. As the table below shows, industries have addressed such concerns by using a "hard conversion" into metric units of the dimensions involved. (Metric conversion also gives the opportunity to "Rationalize" the range of sizes which are available.<ref> |
Metric opposed artisans and practitioners may be concerned by certain dimensions being less memorable with metric units. As the table below shows, industries have addressed such concerns by using a "hard conversion" into metric units of the dimensions involved. (Metric conversion also gives the opportunity to "Rationalize" the range of sizes which are available.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wilks |first1=Kevin Joseph |title=Metrication in Australia : a review of the effectiveness of policies and procedures in Australia's conversion to the metric system |date=1992 |publisher=Australian Govt. Pub. Service |location=Canberra |isbn=9780644248600 |url=https://themetricmaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Metrication-in-Australia-built-2013-06-24.pdf |access-date=1 December 2022}}</ref>): |
||
{| class="wikitable" |
{| class="wikitable" |
||
Line 37: | Line 45: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
| rowspan="2" | Carpentry |
| rowspan="2" | Carpentry |
||
| 4 ft × 8 ft plywood || 1219 mm × 2438 mm (exact)<br/>1200 mm × 2400 mm (Europe)<br/>2400 mm × 1200 mm (Australia/NZ - Largest value first) |
| 4 ft × 8 ft plywood || 1219 mm × 2438 mm (exact)<br />1200 mm × 2400 mm (Europe)<br />2400 mm × 1200 mm (Australia/NZ - Largest value first) |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| 2" by 4" || 50.8 mm × 101.6 mm (exact - however planing makes the actual dimensions narrower.)<br/> 50 mm × 100 mm (Europe) (However, planing makes the actual dimensions 3~8 mm narrower)<br/> 90 mm × 45 mm (Australia/NZ - Accurate "rationalized" planed values are used, with the largest value first.)<ref>http://www.wpv.org.au/docs/STPG.pdf</ref> |
| 2" by 4" || 50.8 mm × 101.6 mm (exact - however planing makes the actual dimensions narrower.)<br /> 50 mm × 100 mm (Europe) (However, planing makes the actual dimensions 3~8 mm narrower)<br /> 90 mm × 45 mm (Australia/NZ - Accurate "rationalized" planed values are used, with the largest value first.)<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.wpv.org.au/docs/STPG.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=8 May 2015 |archive-date=12 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150412050505/http://www.wpv.org.au/docs/STPG.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> |
||
|} |
|} |
||
Some industries, even in metric countries, have adopted industry standards which are not obviously multiples of metric units. One example of this is [[paper size]]s: the widely used [[ISO 216|A series specification]] begins from A0, which has a surface area of 1 square metre, with sides in the ratio of 1:{{sqrt|2}} (841mm by 1189mm). This ratio has the unique property that when cut or folded in half widthways, the halves also have the same aspect ratio. Each ISO paper size is one half of the area of the next larger size in the same series. This means that A4 business letter paper is {{sfrac|1|16}}m |
Some industries, even in metric countries, have adopted industry standards which are not obviously multiples of metric units. One example of this is [[paper size]]s: the widely used [[ISO 216|A series specification]] begins from A0, which has a surface area of 1 square metre, with sides in the ratio of approximately 1:{{sqrt|2}} (841mm by 1189mm). This ratio has the unique property that when cut or folded in half widthways, the halves also have the same aspect ratio. Each ISO paper size is one half of the area of the next larger size in the same series. This means that A4 business letter paper is {{sfrac|1|16}} m<sup>2</sup> (0.0625 m<sup>2</sup>), yielding sides that are 210 mm × 297 mm. |
||
==Political arguments== |
==Political arguments== |
||
===Tradition=== |
===Tradition=== |
||
[[Tradition]]alists consider the retention of traditional non-metric units as a form of [[Traditionalist conservatism|traditionalism]], valuing historic usage spanning centuries. |
|||
Non-metric units often have had different values in different times and places, and some units such as the [[Stone (unit)|stone]] even had different definitions depending on the type of object measured. At the time of the French Revolution there were over 5000 different foot measures. The current UK imperial system is based on the Weights and Measures Act 1824, dating from about 30 years after the founding of the metric system. |
Non-metric units often have had different values in different times and places, and some units such as the [[Stone (unit)|stone]] even had different definitions depending on the type of object measured. At the time of the [[French Revolution]] there were over 5000 different foot measures. The current UK imperial system is based on the [[Weights and Measures Act 1824]] ([[5 Geo. 4]]. c. 74), dating from about 30 years after the founding of the metric system, and some of its units [[Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems|differ very significantly]] from the [[United States customary units]] of the same name. |
||
By contrast, the metric system has remained unchanged (for most practical purposes) since it was first defined. Even though the [[metre]] was initially defined to equal one ten-millionth of the length of the [[meridian (geography)|meridian]] through Paris from pole to the equator, the first [[International prototype metre|prototype metre bar]] was subsequently found to be short by 0.2 millimetres (because researchers miscalculated the flattening of the Earth). Nevertheless, this original reference metre was retained, leaving the exact distance from equator to pole slightly more than ten million metres. The need for a more practical and reproducible definition of the metre and advances in [[metrology]] have led to increased precision in the definition, so that 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. In addition, a reference standard (a rod of platinum-iridium alloy) is maintained by the inter-governmental organisation the [[BIPM|International Bureau of Weights and Measures]], and calibration of a standard metre is usually achieved (to one part in a billion, or slightly better in some recent installations) by counting 1,579,800.298728 wavelengths of the ultra-fine (3s<sup>2</sup> to 2p<sup>4</sup>) emission line of [[helium–neon laser]] light (this wavelength being approximately 632.99139822 nm in a vacuum) |
By contrast, the metric system has remained unchanged (for most practical purposes) since it was first defined. Even though the [[metre]] was initially defined to equal one ten-millionth of the length of the [[meridian (geography)|meridian]] through Paris from pole to the equator, the first [[International prototype metre|prototype metre bar]] was subsequently found to be short by 0.2 millimetres (because researchers miscalculated the flattening of the Earth). Nevertheless, this original reference metre was retained, leaving the exact distance from equator to pole slightly more than ten million metres. The need for a more practical and reproducible definition of the metre and advances in [[metrology]] have led to increased precision in the definition, so that 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. In addition, a reference standard (a rod of [[platinum-iridium alloy]]) is maintained by the inter-governmental organisation the [[BIPM|International Bureau of Weights and Measures]], and calibration of a standard metre is usually achieved (to one part in a billion, or slightly better in some recent installations) by counting 1,579,800.298728 wavelengths of the ultra-fine (3s<sup>2</sup> to 2p<sup>4</sup>) emission line of [[helium–neon laser]] light (this wavelength being approximately 632.99139822 nm in a vacuum). |
||
===Government compulsion=== |
===Government compulsion=== |
||
The adoption of metric units has required some government compulsion<ref>[http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Trade+Measurement-Educational+Material+and+Links-Metrication+-+information+for+students?OpenDocument&1=930-Trade+Measurement~&2=930-Educational+Material+and+Links~&3=0-Metrication+-+information+for+students~ |
The adoption of metric units has required some government compulsion<ref>[http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Trade+Measurement-Educational+Material+and+Links-Metrication+-+information+for+students?OpenDocument&1=930-Trade+Measurement~&2=930-Educational+Material+and+Links~&3=0-Metrication+-+information+for+students~] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091016133941/http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Trade%2BMeasurement-Educational%2BMaterial%2Band%2BLinks-Metrication%2B-%2Binformation%2Bfor%2Bstudents?OpenDocument&1=930-Trade%20Measurement~&2=930-Educational%20Material%20and%20Links~&3=0-Metrication%20-%20information%20for%20students~|date=16 October 2009}}</ref> and some have argued that such policies are wrong in principle.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin161.pdf|author=Richard North|title=AGAINST COMPULSORY METRICATION|publisher=Libertarian.co.uk|accessdate=24 November 2014}}</ref> Compulsory standards of weights and measures go back as far as [[Magna Carta]]. In 1824 in Britain, the [[Weights and Measures Acts of the United Kingdom|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, and prohibited the use of the older units, including what the United States now calls customary US measure. |
||
Anti-metrication in the UK often manifests itself in conjunction with [[Euroscepticism]], though the UK had taken steps toward compulsory metrication prior to [[European Union]] membership: in 1951, a [[Board of Trade]] committee unsuccessfully recommended metrication to the government,<ref name="UKMA">[http://ukma.org.uk/press/metrictimeline.aspx] {{webarchive |
Anti-metrication in the UK often manifests itself in conjunction with [[Euroscepticism]], though the UK had taken steps toward compulsory metrication prior to [[European Union]] membership: in 1951, a [[Board of Trade]] committee unsuccessfully recommended metrication to the government,<ref name="UKMA">[http://ukma.org.uk/press/metrictimeline.aspx] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100819092607/http://ukma.org.uk/press/metrictimeline.aspx|date=19 August 2010}}</ref> ten years before the UK first applied to join the EEC. The Board of Trade initiated metrication in 1965, with a target completion date of 1975<ref name="UKMA" /> and the [[Metrication Board]] was established in 1968,<ref name="UKMA" /> five years before the UK actually joined the [[European Economic Community]] (on its second attempt). The EU's own [[Directive 80/181/EEC|Units of Measurement Directive]] dated from 1971 and was substantially revised in 1979. |
||
All [[Statutory Instrument]]s about metrication since 1985 have relied on powers derived from the UK [[European Communities Act 1972 (UK)|European Communities Act 1972]]. This helped to reinforce anti-EU sentiment, as the British Parliament does not vote on such measures. More recently, opponents of metrication have asserted that legal compulsion under the [[Weights and Measures Act 1985]] to adopt the metric system instead of their traditional weights and measures is an infringement of the 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 [[Metric Martyrs|some British shopkeepers]] who said that their human rights had been violated. |
All [[Statutory Instrument]]s about metrication since 1985 have relied on powers derived from the UK [[European Communities Act 1972 (UK)|European Communities Act 1972]]. This helped to reinforce anti-EU sentiment, as the British Parliament does not vote on such measures. More recently, opponents of metrication have asserted that legal compulsion under the [[Weights and Measures Act 1985]] to adopt the metric system instead of their traditional weights and measures is an infringement of the 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 [[Metric Martyrs|some British shopkeepers]] who said that their human rights had been violated. |
||
On 8 May 2007, several British newspapers including ''The Times''<ref>{{cite news|url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article1764093.ece|title=Consumer Affairs|newspaper=[[The Times]]|date=9 May 2007|accessdate=24 November 2014}}</ref> used correspondence between [[Giles Chichester|Giles Chichester MEP]] and [[Verheugen|EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen]] to report that the European Commission had decided to allow meat, fish, fruit and vegetables to continue to be sold in pounds and ounces. These reports did not mention that pounds and ounces would only retain supplementary unit status. On 10 September, the EU Commission published proposed amendments to the Units of Measurement Directive that would permit supplementary units (such as pounds and ounces) to be used indefinitely alongside, ''but not instead of'', the units catalogued in the Units of Measurement Directive. The reporting of this decision in the [[British press]] was sufficiently misleading that the Roger Marles, Head of [British] [[Trading Standards]], issued the following statement: |
On 8 May 2007, several British newspapers including ''The Times''<ref>{{cite news|url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article1764093.ece|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080723151120/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article1764093.ece|url-status=dead|archive-date=23 July 2008|title=Consumer Affairs|newspaper=[[The Times]]|date=9 May 2007|accessdate=24 November 2014}}</ref> used correspondence between [[Giles Chichester|Giles Chichester MEP]] and [[Verheugen|EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen]] to report that the European Commission had decided to allow meat, fish, fruit and vegetables to continue to be sold in pounds and ounces. These reports did not mention that pounds and ounces would only retain supplementary unit status. On 10 September, the EU Commission published proposed amendments to the Units of Measurement Directive that would permit supplementary units (such as pounds and ounces) to be used indefinitely alongside, ''but not instead of'', the units catalogued in the Units of Measurement Directive. The reporting of this decision in the [[British press]] was sufficiently misleading that the Roger Marles, Head of [British] [[Trading Standards]], issued the following statement: |
||
{{ |
{{blockquote|The legal position on the use of imperial measures has not changed. Pre-packed goods and goods sold loose from bulk, such as fruit and vegetables, are still required to be sold in metric quantities and weighing scales must be calibrated in metric units of measurement. Suggestions that goods can now be sold in pounds and ounces are incorrect.<ref>{{cite web |
||
|url=http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/glos/metric.htm |
|url=http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/glos/metric.htm |
||
|title=Clearing Up the Metric Muddle |
|title=Clearing Up the Metric Muddle |
||
Line 72: | Line 80: | ||
}}</ref>}} |
}}</ref>}} |
||
In the US, there is also government compulsion with weights and measures. Federal and state laws control the labelling of goods for sale in the supermarket, drugs, wine, liquor, etc. The US [[Fair Packaging and Labeling Act]] mandates that measurement must be in ''both'' metric and [[United States customary units|US customary units]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/outline.html |title=FPLA Introduction |publisher=Ftc.gov |accessdate=17 November 2010 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606154737/http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/outline.html |archivedate=6 June 2011 }}</ref> However, wine must be bottled in 50 [[millilitre|ml]], 100 ml, 187 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml, 1 litre, 1.5 litre, or 3 litre sizes. Containers over 3 litres must be bottled in quantities of whole numbers of litres. No other sizes may be bottled.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ttb.gov/pdf/brochures/p51901.pdf |
In the US, there is also government compulsion with weights and measures. Federal and state laws control the labelling of goods for sale in the supermarket, drugs, wine, liquor, etc. The US [[Fair Packaging and Labeling Act]] mandates that measurement must be in ''both'' metric and [[United States customary units|US customary units]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/outline.html |title=FPLA Introduction |publisher=Ftc.gov |accessdate=17 November 2010 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606154737/http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/outline.html |archivedate=6 June 2011 }}</ref> However, wine must be bottled in 50 [[millilitre|ml]], 100 ml, 187 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml, 1 litre, 1.5 litre, or 3 litre sizes. Containers over 3 litres must be bottled in quantities of whole numbers of litres. No other sizes may be bottled.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ttb.gov/pdf/brochures/p51901.pdf|title=Wine Labeling Regulations|publisher=Ttb.gov|accessdate=24 November 2014}}</ref> Spirits must also be sold in metric quantities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ttb.gov/pdf/brochures/p51902.pdf|title=Distilled Spirit Labeling Regulations|publisher=Ttb.gov|accessdate=24 November 2014}}</ref> |
||
[[NASA]], the United States' space agency, has taken a less compulsory approach. |
[[NASA]], the United States' space agency, has taken a less compulsory approach. On 29 March 2010, NASA decided to avoid making its proposed [[Constellation program|Constellation]] rocket system metric-compliant, especially due to pressure from manufacturers; ultimately the program was discontinued. It had been predicted that it would cost {{USD|368 million}} to convert to metric measurements for parts made by both NASA and external companies. Constellation would have borrowed technology from the 1970s-era Space Shuttle program, which used non-metric measurements in software and hardware.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY10/IG-10-011.pdf|title=REVIEW OF THE CONSTELLATION PROGRAM'S REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE USING THE METRIC SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT|publisher=Oig.nasa.gov|accessdate=24 November 2014}}</ref> NASA's non-compulsory position has contributed to at least one major mission-failure: in 1999, [[Lockheed Martin]]'s use of English units caused the disintegration of NASA's $328 million [[Mars Climate Orbiter]].<ref>{{cite press release |title=Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board Phase I Report |publisher=NASA |date=10 November 1999 |url=http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/MCO_report.pdf |accessdate=20 April 2015}}</ref> Despite NASA's non-compulsory policy, commercial space manufacturer [[SpaceX]] currently designs its systems (e.g., [[SpaceX Dragon|Dragon]] and [[Falcon 9]]) using metric units.{{Cn|date=October 2024}} |
||
===High modernism and legibility=== |
===High modernism and legibility=== |
||
Line 84: | Line 92: | ||
|publisher= Abacus |
|publisher= Abacus |
||
|location= London |
|location= London |
||
|isbn= 0 |
|isbn= 0-349-11507-9 |
||
|pages= 2–3}}</ref> He claimed that the metric system originated in the [[ideology]] of [[reason|Pure Reason]] from the more radical element of the [[French Revolution]], that it was devised in France to try to make France "revenue-rich, militarily potent, and easily administered", and that it was part of a conscious plan to transform French culture, meant to unify and transform French society: "As mathematics was the language of science, so would the metric system be the language of commerce and industry."<ref>Alder, Ken (1995). "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}}</ref> In his 1998 monograph ''Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed'', [[James C. Scott]] argued that central governments attempt to impose what he calls "legibility" on their subjects. Local customs concerning measurements, like local customs concerning [[patronym]]ics, tend to come under severe pressure from bureaucrats. 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.<ref>Scott, ''Seeing Like a State'', pp. 30-33.</ref> While the metric system was introduced in the French law by the revolutionary government in April 1795,<ref>{{cite web|title=Histoire de la mesure - du mètre au SI|url=http://www.metrologie-francaise.fr/fr/histoire/histoire-mesure.asp|publisher=metrologie-francaise.fr|accessdate=20 April 2011|language=French}}</ref> it did not immediately displace traditional measurements in the popular mind. In fact, its use was initially associated with officialdom and elitism as [[François-René de Chateaubriand| |
|pages= 2–3}}</ref> He claimed that the metric system originated in the [[ideology]] of [[reason|Pure Reason]] from the more radical element of the [[French Revolution]], that it was devised in France to try to make France "revenue-rich, militarily potent, and easily administered", and that it was part of a conscious plan to transform French culture, meant to unify and transform French society: "As mathematics was the language of science, so would the metric system be the language of commerce and industry."<ref>Alder, Ken (1995). "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}}</ref> In his 1998 monograph ''Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed'', [[James C. Scott]] argued that central governments attempt to impose what he calls "legibility" on their subjects. Local customs concerning measurements, like local customs concerning [[patronym]]ics, tend to come under severe pressure from bureaucrats. 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.<ref>Scott, ''Seeing Like a State'', pp. 30-33.</ref> While the metric system was introduced in the French law by the revolutionary government in April 1795,<ref>{{cite web|title=Histoire de la mesure - du mètre au SI|url=http://www.metrologie-francaise.fr/fr/histoire/histoire-mesure.asp|publisher=metrologie-francaise.fr|accessdate=20 April 2011|language=French}}</ref> it did not immediately displace traditional measurements in the popular mind. In fact, its use was initially associated with officialdom and elitism as [[François-René de Chateaubriand|François-René]] remarked in 1828: "Whenever you meet a fellow who, instead of talking ''[[arpent]]s'', ''[[toise]]s'', and [[Foot (unit)|''pieds'']], refers to ''hectares'', ''metres'', and ''centimetres'', rest assured, the man is a [[Préfet|prefect]]."<ref>Quoted in Witold Kula, ''Measures and Men'', tr. R. Szreter (Princeton, 1986: {{ISBN|0-691-05446-0}}), p. 286</ref> However, it was largely used in France and [[Metrication#Status by country/region|in other countries]] by July 1837 when the decimal metric system was finally decided upon and considered the only official measurement system to be used in France. |
||
===Price inflation=== |
===Price inflation=== |
||
The [[advocacy group]] [[British Weights and Measures Association]] argues that adopting metric measures in shops, especially in supermarkets, gives an opportunity for traders to increase prices covertly. They give numerous examples of packaged groceries to back up this contention.<ref name="metric rip-off">{{cite web|url=http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20Downsizing.htm |title=The Great Metric Rip-Off |publisher=[[British Weights and Measures Association]] |date= 15 July 2007 |accessdate=1 February 2010}}</ref> |
The [[advocacy group]] [[British Weights and Measures Association]] argues that adopting metric measures in shops, especially in supermarkets, gives an opportunity for traders to increase prices covertly. They give numerous examples of packaged groceries to back up this contention.<ref name="metric rip-off">{{cite web|url=http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20Downsizing.htm |title=The Great Metric Rip-Off |publisher=[[British Weights and Measures Association]] |date= 15 July 2007 |accessdate=1 February 2010}}</ref> |
||
When [[Pepsi]] became the first in the United States to sell [[soft drink]]s in [[two-litre bottle]]s<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Our-History.html#block_1970 |publisher=PepsiCo |title=PepsiCo - Company - History|accessdate=24 November 2014 |year=2006}}</ref> instead of two-''quart'' (US)(1.89 litre) bottles, it was a success, and two-litre bottles are now well-established in the American soft drink market,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Our-History.html#block_1998 |title=PepsiCo Our History |publisher=PepsiCo.com |accessdate=17 November 2010}}</ref> though fluid ounces remain the usual unit of measure for cans. |
When [[Pepsi]] became the first in the United States to sell [[soft drink]]s in [[two-litre bottle]]s<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Our-History.html#block_1970 |publisher=PepsiCo |title=PepsiCo - Company - History|accessdate=24 November 2014 |year=2006}}</ref> instead of two-''quart'' (US) (1.89 litre) bottles, it was a success, and two-litre bottles are now well-established in the American soft drink market,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pepsico.com/Company/Our-History.html#block_1998 |title=PepsiCo Our History |publisher=PepsiCo.com |accessdate=17 November 2010}}</ref> though fluid ounces remain the usual unit of measure for cans. |
||
The move to smaller units (e.g. [[millilitre]] vs [[fluid ounce]], [[gram]] vs [[ounce]]) allows manufacturers to move sizes of packaging up and down with more precision using whole numbers. For example, a 2-ounce bag of chips may be altered to 50 grams, then to 45 grams. Likewise, a variety of packaging sizes may arise, such as 690 grams (about 24 oz) or 1200 grams (about 42 oz), resulting from conversion and rounding of customary units. However, the precise adjustment of packaging sizes is also possible using customary units, e.g. the 2-ounce bag can be downsized to 1.8 and 1.6 ounces as well. |
The move to smaller units (e.g., [[millilitre]] vs [[fluid ounce]], [[gram]] vs [[ounce]]) allows manufacturers to move sizes of packaging up and down with more precision using whole numbers. For example, a 2-ounce bag of chips may be altered to 50 grams, then to 45 grams. Likewise, a variety of packaging sizes may arise, such as 690 grams (about 24 oz) or 1200 grams (about 42 oz), resulting from conversion and rounding of customary units. However, the precise adjustment of packaging sizes is also possible using customary units, e.g., the 2-ounce bag can be downsized to 1.8 and 1.6 ounces as well. |
||
The Australian experience of metric conversion showed no evidence of price inflation caused by metrication.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://themetricmaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Metrication-in-Australia-built-2013-06-24.pdf |
The Australian experience of metric conversion showed no evidence of price inflation caused by metrication.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://themetricmaven.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Metrication-in-Australia-built-2013-06-24.pdf |title=Metrication in Australia |year=1992 |website=themetricmaven.com |publisher= [[Australian Government Publishing Service]] |accessdate=22 August 2013}}</ref> |
||
==British Weights and Measures Association== |
|||
{{Infobox organization |
|||
|name = British Weights and Measures Association |
|||
|image = |
|||
|image_border = |
|||
|size = 200px |
|||
|alt = |
|||
|caption = |
|||
|map = |
|||
|msize = |
|||
|malt = |
|||
|mcaption = |
|||
|abbreviation = BWMA |
|||
|motto = |
|||
|formation = 1995 |
|||
|extinction = |
|||
|type = [[Advocacy group]] |
|||
|status = |
|||
|purpose = |
|||
|headquarters = |
|||
|location = |
|||
|region_served = |
|||
|membership = |
|||
|language = |
|||
|leader_title = |
|||
|leader_name = |
|||
|main_organ = |
|||
|parent_organization = |
|||
|affiliations = |
|||
|num_staff = |
|||
|num_volunteers = |
|||
|budget = |
|||
|website = [http://www.bwma.org.uk bwmaorg.uk] |
|||
|remarks = |
|||
}} |
|||
The current '''British Weights and Measures Association''', or '''BWMA''', is an [[Interest group|advocacy group]] established in the United Kingdom in 1995, founded by Vivian Linacre.<ref name="DANGO">{{cite web | last = | first =| title = Database of archives of Non Governmental Organisations – BWMA | publisher = DANGO | date = 17 April 2007 | url = http://www.dango.bham.ac.uk/record_details.asp?id=831&recordType=ngo | format = | doi = | accessdate = 17 August 2007 }}</ref> The current body was established in 1995, but there had also been a predecessor organisation, also called the BWMA, that was established in 1904, and lapsed after the First World War. |
|||
===Aim of the BWMA=== |
|||
The BWMA's stated aim is to uphold the freedom to use the [[Imperial unit|Imperial system]] and to oppose the compulsory imposition of the [[metric system]] in the UK. The BWMA's campaign parallels the evolution of the [[Euroscepticism|eurosceptic]] viewpoint of the UK's [[European Union–United Kingdom relations|relationship]] with the EU<ref>[http://bwma.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Ministers-Metrication-Conspiracy.pdf BWMA "Ministers' Metrication Conspiracy"]</ref> - its founder, Vivian Linacre, stood for [[1995 Perth and Kinross by-election|election]] as a [[UK Independence Party]] candidate in 1995, the same year as he founded the BWMA - famously asking the controversial eurosceptic [[Enoch Powell]] for endorsement of his political campaign.<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11291050/Nigel-Farage-and-Enoch-Powell-the-full-story-of-Ukips-links-with-the-Rivers-of-Blood-politician.html The Telegraph: "Nigel Farage and Enoch Powell"]</ref> |
|||
By the time of the modern BWMA's founding, [[metrication in the United Kingdom]] was far advanced, having begun in 1962. British schoolchildren had been educated using only metric measures since 1974 (earlier in some places), and British industry had changed to using metric tools and equipment during the 1980s and were, in most cases, manufacturing to metric standards. |
|||
===Campaigns=== |
|||
* BWMA maintain that people should be free to use the metric system if they want, but that it should not be forced upon them.<ref name="PRN123374"> |
|||
{{cite press release |
|||
| title = British Weights & Measures Association – Annual Awards |
|||
| publisher = |
|||
| date = 21 May 2004 |
|||
| url = http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=123374 |
|||
| accessdate = 17 August 2007 }}</ref> and specifically, the Association campaigns for freedom for traders to serve their customers in whichever measures both parties find most convenient. |
|||
* BWMA campaigns against the metrication of road signs<ref>[http://www.bwmaonline.com/Transport%20-%20Windsor%20Great%20Park.htm BWMA/Transport – De-metricated signs<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> and in 2009 published their response<ref>[http://www.bwmaonline.com/Yardstick%2039%20-%20December%202009.doc Yardstick: Dec 2009] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110515094000/http://www.bwmaonline.com/Yardstick%2039%20-%20December%202009.doc |date=15 May 2011 }}</ref> to a consultation hosted by the UK's Department for Transport which discussed a proposal to require compulsory dual Metric/Imperial signs of height limits and width limits. BWMA's responded that dual-units signage should not be made compulsory, and that the legal provisions (from the 1980s) allowing voluntary dual-units signage should be repealed so that only Imperial units could be displayed. This, the BWMA claimed, was to "avoid confusion." |
|||
* BWMA support the [[Metric Martyrs]] – a group of traders prosecuted for their defiance of the [[Weights and Measures Acts of the United Kingdom|Weights and Measures Act]]<ref>[http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=Act+(UK+Public+General)&title=weights+and+measures&Year=1985&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=2191980&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0 Results within Legislation – Statute Law Database<!-- Bot generated title -->]{{dead link|date=November 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> and the [[Price Marking Order]].<ref>[http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=S.I.+(All+UK)&title=Price+marking+order&Year=2004&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=962202&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0 Results within Legislation – Statute Law Database<!-- Bot generated title -->]{{dead link|date=November 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> |
|||
* BWMA gives detailed advice on how traders can circumvent regulations mandating metric weights and measures.<ref>[http://www.bwmaonline.com/Business%20-%20Survival%20Guide%20to%20Metric%20Law.htm BWMA/Business Issues – Survival Guide to Metric Law<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
* BWMA members have published a number of books arguing for customary measures. These include ''The General Rule'' by BWMA President Vivian Linacre (Squeeze Press) and ''About the Size of It'' by [[Warwick Cairns]]. |
|||
*The BWMA has published a "rogues' gallery" of those they label "Metric Culprits." These include a long list of individuals and bodies that have advocated or supported metrication, including the Irish Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, who metricated road signs in [[Republic of Ireland]] in 2005.<ref>[http://www.bwmaonline.com/Metric%20Culprits.htm BWMA/Metric Culprits<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
===Opposition=== |
|||
*These actions contrast with the [[UK Metric Association]] (UKMA), which campaigns for compulsory [[Metrication in the United Kingdom]] for all legal and official purposes, including trade and road signs. |
|||
===Patrons=== |
|||
* [[Gwyneth Dunwoody]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1930–2008) |
|||
* Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly (1915–2010)<ref name="BWMA001"/> |
|||
* [[Sir Patrick Moore]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1923–2012) |
|||
* [[John Monson, 11th Baron Monson]] (1932–2011)<ref name="BWMA001">{{cite web |
|||
| last = |
|||
| first = |
|||
| title = BWMA Patrons and Honorary members |
|||
| publisher = British Weights and Measures Association |
|||
| date = |
|||
| url = http://www.bwmaonline.com/Hon%20members.htm |
|||
| doi = |
|||
| accessdate = 17 August 2007 |
|||
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120207130956/http://www.bwmaonline.com/Hon%20members.htm |
|||
| archive-date = 7 February 2012 |
|||
| url-status = dead |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
===Honorary members=== |
|||
{{missing information|what is the relationship of the named people with the Association, do they acknowledge/accept the honor or declare support for the BWMA?|date=June 2019}} |
|||
{| |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* [[Peter Alliss]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1931-2020) |
|||
* [[Clive Anderson]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1952) |
|||
* [[Trevor Bailey]] (1923–2011)<ref name="PM Letter"> |
|||
{{cite web |
|||
| last = |
|||
| first = |
|||
| title = Letter to Prime Minister |
|||
| publisher = British Weights and Measures Association |
|||
| date = 16 April 2006 |
|||
| url = http://www.bwmaonline.com/Letter%20to%20the%20Prime%20Minister.htm |
|||
| doi = |
|||
| accessdate = 17 August 2007 }}</ref> |
|||
* [[Michael Bukht|Michael Barry]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1941-2011) |
|||
* [[Christopher Booker]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (1937-2019) |
|||
* [[Ian Botham]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1955) |
|||
* [[Max Bygraves]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1922-2012) |
|||
* [[Beryl Cook]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1926–2008 ) |
|||
* [[Jilly Cooper]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1937) |
|||
* [[Richard Demarco]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1930) |
|||
* [[Roy Faiers]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> |
|||
* [[Ranulph Fiennes]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1944) |
|||
* [[Edward Fox (actor)|Edward Fox]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1937) |
|||
* [[Dick Francis]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1920–2010) |
|||
* [[George MacDonald Fraser]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (1925–2008) |
|||
* [[Sandy Gall]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1927) |
|||
* [[Simon Heffer]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1960) |
|||
* [[Peter Hitchens]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1951) |
|||
|valign="top"| |
|||
* [[Jools Holland]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1958) |
|||
* [[Richard Holmes (military historian)|Richard Holmes]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (1946–2011) |
|||
* [[Richard Ingrams]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1937) |
|||
* James Le Fanu<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1950)<ref>[http://www.jameslefanu.com/ jameslefanu.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
* [[Candida Lycett Green]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1942) |
|||
* [[Jonathan Lynn]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1943) |
|||
* [[Richard Mabey]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1941) |
|||
* [[Christopher Martin-Jenkins]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (1945–2013) |
|||
* [[Micah Nathan]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1973) |
|||
* [[Robin Page (journalist)|Robin Page]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1943) |
|||
* [[Andrew Phillips, Baron Phillips of Sudbury]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1939) |
|||
* William Poole<ref name="PM Letter"/> |
|||
* [[Tim Rice]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1944) |
|||
* [[Andrew Roberts (historian)|Andrew Roberts]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1963) |
|||
* [[J.K. Rowling]]<ref name="BWMA001"/> (b. 1965) |
|||
* [[Quinlan Terry]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1937) |
|||
* [[Antony Worrall Thompson]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (b. 1951) |
|||
* [[Keith Waterhouse]]<ref name="PM Letter"/> (1929–2009) |
|||
|} |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Line 126: | Line 264: | ||
* {{Cite journal | last = Halsey | first = Frederick Arthur | year = 1920 | title = The Metric Fallacy | edition = 2nd | publisher = American Institute of Weights and Measures |
* {{Cite journal | last = Halsey | first = Frederick Arthur | year = 1920 | title = The Metric Fallacy | edition = 2nd | publisher = American Institute of Weights and Measures |
||
| location = New York | url = https://archive.org/details/metricfallacyan01dalegoog | quote = Halsey Metric Fallacy. | lccn = 22014705}}. |
| location = New York | url = https://archive.org/details/metricfallacyan01dalegoog | quote = Halsey Metric Fallacy. | lccn = 22014705}}. |
||
* [[Warwick Cairns|Cairns, Warwick]] (2007). ''About the Size of It: The Common Sense Approach to Measuring Things'', [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]], {{ISBN|978-0-230-01628-6}} |
|||
* Linacre, Vivian (2007). ''The General Rule: A Guide to Customary Weights and Measures '', The Squeeze Press, {{ISBN|978-1-906069-01-8}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*[http://bwma.org.uk/ BMWA's official website] |
|||
{{Metrication}} |
{{Metrication}} |
||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Metrication Opposition}} |
{{DEFAULTSORT:Metrication Opposition}} |
||
[[Category:Metrication opposition| ]] |
[[Category:Metrication opposition| ]] |
Latest revision as of 10:53, 19 October 2024
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
The spread of metrication around the world in the last two centuries has been met with both support and opposition.[where?]
Metrication
[edit]The United States of America officially accepted the Metric System in 1878 but United States customary units remain ubiquitous outside the science and technology sector. The metric system has been largely adopted in Canada and Ireland, and partially adopted in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, without having fully displaced imperial units from all areas of life. In other Anglophone countries such as Australia, Singapore and New Zealand, imperial units have been formally deprecated and are no longer officially sanctioned for use.[1][2]
Technical arguments
[edit]Natural evolution and human scale
[edit]One argument used by opponents of the metric system is that traditional systems of measurement were developed organically from actual use.[3] Early measures were human in scale, intuitive, and imprecise, as illustrated by still-current expressions such as a stone's throw, within earshot, a cartload or a handful. These measurements' developers, living and working in an era before modern science, gave fundamental priority to ease of learning and use; moreover, the variation permissible within these measurements allowed them to be relational and commensurable: a request for a judgment of measure allowed for a variety of answers, depending on context. In parts of Malaysia, villagers asked the distance to the next village were likely[4] to respond with three rice cookings; an approximation of the time it would take to travel there on foot. Everyone is assumed to know both how long it takes to cook rice, and how fast a person walks. Nominally standard units were also subject to contextual variations. The aune, a French ell used for measuring cloth, depended on the sort of cloth being measured, taking price and scarcity into account: an aune of silk was shorter than an aune of linen.[4]
Nowadays most non-metric units are standardised to fixed values, which eliminates the disadvantage of imprecision while retaining the advantage of human scale. For example, the advocacy group British Weights and Measures Association has argued that metrication led to greater complexity for consumers accustomed to imperial units because, unlike the ounce, a single gram is too small a measurement in everyday life.[5]
Divisibility
[edit]Metric opponents cite easier division of customary units as one reason not to adopt a decimalised system. For example, those customary units with ratios of 12 and 16 have more proper factors, {2, 3, 4, 6} and {2, 4, 8}, than the metric 10: {2, 5}. However, easily divisible numbers can be selected for use with metric units, e.g. 300 mm and its multiples. The number of times that these odd fractional numbers would come up has also been pointed out as a counterargument; in construction and engineering, for example, measurements would not only be likely to be in integers to begin with, but would also rarely be needed to convert to another unit.[citation needed]
The main disadvantage cited by critics of customary measures is the proliferation of units, their (sometimes) non-unique definition and the difficulty in remembering the ratios between them.[citation needed]
Duplication in naming and usage
[edit]A common argument for the metric system is that it avoids duplication of naming and the associated confusion. The most commonly cited example is pound (force) vs pound (mass), which have the same symbol and are both commonly written simply as "pounds", which can lead to costly and dangerous shipping and engineering errors. Opponents of metrication argue that this issue only occurs due to misuse; when used 'properly', there is no cause for confusion.
Separately, it is also argued that customary units feature too many overlapping units. The most commonly cited examples are in liquid volume, where metric has simply litres while customary has gallons, pints, quarts, fluid ounces, and the rarely used gill, and minim, all of which cover volumes of liquid in similar ranges. Metrication opponents argue that this allows for easily listing amounts that are awkward in metric (e.g. 1 liquid pint = 568.3 mL in the UK and 473 mL in the US) but are commonly used and avoids "excessive" use of decimals and fractions. These problems however would disappear if metrication continues and they cease to become as common, replaced with a metric equivalent. For example, a pint is often rounded down to 0.5 L, otherwise sometimes rounded up to 0.6 L.
Industry-specific product sizing
[edit]Metric opposed artisans and practitioners may be concerned by certain dimensions being less memorable with metric units. As the table below shows, industries have addressed such concerns by using a "hard conversion" into metric units of the dimensions involved. (Metric conversion also gives the opportunity to "Rationalize" the range of sizes which are available.[6]):
Industry | Common reference | Metric reference |
---|---|---|
Carpentry | 4 ft × 8 ft plywood | 1219 mm × 2438 mm (exact) 1200 mm × 2400 mm (Europe) 2400 mm × 1200 mm (Australia/NZ - Largest value first) |
2" by 4" | 50.8 mm × 101.6 mm (exact - however planing makes the actual dimensions narrower.) 50 mm × 100 mm (Europe) (However, planing makes the actual dimensions 3~8 mm narrower) 90 mm × 45 mm (Australia/NZ - Accurate "rationalized" planed values are used, with the largest value first.)[7] |
Some industries, even in metric countries, have adopted industry standards which are not obviously multiples of metric units. One example of this is paper sizes: the widely used A series specification begins from A0, which has a surface area of 1 square metre, with sides in the ratio of approximately 1:√2 (841mm by 1189mm). This ratio has the unique property that when cut or folded in half widthways, the halves also have the same aspect ratio. Each ISO paper size is one half of the area of the next larger size in the same series. This means that A4 business letter paper is 1/16 m2 (0.0625 m2), yielding sides that are 210 mm × 297 mm.
Political arguments
[edit]Tradition
[edit]Traditionalists consider the retention of traditional non-metric units as a form of traditionalism, valuing historic usage spanning centuries.
Non-metric units often have had different values in different times and places, and some units such as the stone even had different definitions depending on the type of object measured. At the time of the French Revolution there were over 5000 different foot measures. The current UK imperial system is based on the Weights and Measures Act 1824 (5 Geo. 4. c. 74), dating from about 30 years after the founding of the metric system, and some of its units differ very significantly from the United States customary units of the same name.
By contrast, the metric system has remained unchanged (for most practical purposes) since it was first defined. Even though the metre was initially defined to equal one ten-millionth of the length of the meridian through Paris from pole to the equator, the first prototype metre bar was subsequently found to be short by 0.2 millimetres (because researchers miscalculated the flattening of the Earth). Nevertheless, this original reference metre was retained, leaving the exact distance from equator to pole slightly more than ten million metres. The need for a more practical and reproducible definition of the metre and advances in metrology have led to increased precision in the definition, so that it is now defined as the length travelled by light in a vacuum during the time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. In addition, a reference standard (a rod of platinum-iridium alloy) is maintained by the inter-governmental organisation the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, and calibration of a standard metre is usually achieved (to one part in a billion, or slightly better in some recent installations) 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 632.99139822 nm in a vacuum).
Government compulsion
[edit]The adoption of metric units has required some government compulsion[8] and some have argued that such policies are wrong in principle.[9] Compulsory standards of weights and measures go back as far as Magna Carta. In 1824 in Britain, 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, and prohibited the use of the older units, including what the United States now calls customary US measure.
Anti-metrication in the UK often manifests itself in conjunction with Euroscepticism, though the UK had taken steps toward compulsory metrication prior to European Union membership: in 1951, a Board of Trade committee unsuccessfully recommended metrication to the government,[10] ten years before the UK first applied to join the EEC. The Board of Trade initiated metrication in 1965, with a target completion date of 1975[10] and the Metrication Board was established in 1968,[10] five years before the UK actually joined the European Economic Community (on its second attempt). The EU's own Units of Measurement Directive dated from 1971 and was substantially revised in 1979.
All Statutory Instruments about metrication since 1985 have relied on powers derived from the UK European Communities Act 1972. This helped to reinforce anti-EU sentiment, as the British Parliament does not vote on such measures. More recently, opponents of metrication have asserted that legal compulsion under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to adopt the metric system instead of their traditional weights and measures is an infringement of the 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.
On 8 May 2007, several British newspapers including The Times[11] used correspondence between Giles Chichester MEP and EU Commissioner Günter Verheugen to report that the European Commission had decided to allow meat, fish, fruit and vegetables to continue to be sold in pounds and ounces. These reports did not mention that pounds and ounces would only retain supplementary unit status. On 10 September, the EU Commission published proposed amendments to the Units of Measurement Directive that would permit supplementary units (such as pounds and ounces) to be used indefinitely alongside, but not instead of, the units catalogued in the Units of Measurement Directive. The reporting of this decision in the British press was sufficiently misleading that the Roger Marles, Head of [British] Trading Standards, issued the following statement:
The legal position on the use of imperial measures has not changed. Pre-packed goods and goods sold loose from bulk, such as fruit and vegetables, are still required to be sold in metric quantities and weighing scales must be calibrated in metric units of measurement. Suggestions that goods can now be sold in pounds and ounces are incorrect.[12]
In the US, there is also government compulsion with weights and measures. Federal and state laws control the labelling of goods for sale in the supermarket, drugs, wine, liquor, etc. The US Fair Packaging and Labeling Act mandates that measurement must be in both metric and US customary units.[13] However, wine must be bottled in 50 ml, 100 ml, 187 ml, 375 ml, 500 ml, 750 ml, 1 litre, 1.5 litre, or 3 litre sizes. Containers over 3 litres must be bottled in quantities of whole numbers of litres. No other sizes may be bottled.[14] Spirits must also be sold in metric quantities.[15]
NASA, the United States' space agency, has taken a less compulsory approach. On 29 March 2010, NASA decided to avoid making its proposed Constellation rocket system metric-compliant, especially due to pressure from manufacturers; ultimately the program was discontinued. It had been predicted that it would cost US$368 million to convert to metric measurements for parts made by both NASA and external companies. Constellation would have borrowed technology from the 1970s-era Space Shuttle program, which used non-metric measurements in software and hardware.[16] NASA's non-compulsory position has contributed to at least one major mission-failure: in 1999, Lockheed Martin's use of English units caused the disintegration of NASA's $328 million Mars Climate Orbiter.[17] Despite NASA's non-compulsory policy, commercial space manufacturer SpaceX currently designs its systems (e.g., Dragon and Falcon 9) using metric units.[citation needed]
High modernism and legibility
[edit]Commentator Ken Alder noted that on the eve of the French Revolution a quarter of a million different units of measure were in use in France; in many cases the quantity associated with each unit of measure differed from town to town and often from trade to trade.[18] He claimed that the metric system originated in the ideology of Pure Reason from the more radical element of the French Revolution, that it was devised in France to try to make France "revenue-rich, militarily potent, and easily administered", and that it was part of a conscious plan to transform French culture, meant to unify and transform French society: "As mathematics was the language of science, so would the metric system be the language of commerce and industry."[19] In his 1998 monograph Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, James C. Scott argued that central governments attempt to impose what he calls "legibility" on their subjects. Local customs concerning measurements, like local customs concerning patronymics, tend to come under severe pressure from bureaucrats. 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.[20] While the metric system was introduced in the French law by the revolutionary government in April 1795,[21] it did not immediately displace traditional measurements in the popular mind. In fact, its use was initially associated with officialdom and elitism as François-René remarked in 1828: "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."[22] However, it was largely used in France and in other countries by July 1837 when the decimal metric system was finally decided upon and considered the only official measurement system to be used in France.
Price inflation
[edit]The advocacy group British Weights and Measures Association argues that adopting metric measures in shops, especially in supermarkets, gives an opportunity for traders to increase prices covertly. They give numerous examples of packaged groceries to back up this contention.[23]
When Pepsi became the first in the United States to sell soft drinks in two-litre bottles[24] instead of two-quart (US) (1.89 litre) bottles, it was a success, and two-litre bottles are now well-established in the American soft drink market,[25] though fluid ounces remain the usual unit of measure for cans.
The move to smaller units (e.g., millilitre vs fluid ounce, gram vs ounce) allows manufacturers to move sizes of packaging up and down with more precision using whole numbers. For example, a 2-ounce bag of chips may be altered to 50 grams, then to 45 grams. Likewise, a variety of packaging sizes may arise, such as 690 grams (about 24 oz) or 1200 grams (about 42 oz), resulting from conversion and rounding of customary units. However, the precise adjustment of packaging sizes is also possible using customary units, e.g., the 2-ounce bag can be downsized to 1.8 and 1.6 ounces as well.
The Australian experience of metric conversion showed no evidence of price inflation caused by metrication.[26]
British Weights and Measures Association
[edit]Abbreviation | BWMA |
---|---|
Formation | 1995 |
Type | Advocacy group |
Website | bwmaorg.uk |
The current British Weights and Measures Association, or BWMA, is an advocacy group established in the United Kingdom in 1995, founded by Vivian Linacre.[27] The current body was established in 1995, but there had also been a predecessor organisation, also called the BWMA, that was established in 1904, and lapsed after the First World War.
Aim of the BWMA
[edit]The BWMA's stated aim is to uphold the freedom to use the Imperial system and to oppose the compulsory imposition of the metric system in the UK. The BWMA's campaign parallels the evolution of the eurosceptic viewpoint of the UK's relationship with the EU[28] - its founder, Vivian Linacre, stood for election as a UK Independence Party candidate in 1995, the same year as he founded the BWMA - famously asking the controversial eurosceptic Enoch Powell for endorsement of his political campaign.[29]
By the time of the modern BWMA's founding, metrication in the United Kingdom was far advanced, having begun in 1962. British schoolchildren had been educated using only metric measures since 1974 (earlier in some places), and British industry had changed to using metric tools and equipment during the 1980s and were, in most cases, manufacturing to metric standards.
Campaigns
[edit]- BWMA maintain that people should be free to use the metric system if they want, but that it should not be forced upon them.[30] and specifically, the Association campaigns for freedom for traders to serve their customers in whichever measures both parties find most convenient.
- BWMA campaigns against the metrication of road signs[31] and in 2009 published their response[32] to a consultation hosted by the UK's Department for Transport which discussed a proposal to require compulsory dual Metric/Imperial signs of height limits and width limits. BWMA's responded that dual-units signage should not be made compulsory, and that the legal provisions (from the 1980s) allowing voluntary dual-units signage should be repealed so that only Imperial units could be displayed. This, the BWMA claimed, was to "avoid confusion."
- BWMA support the Metric Martyrs – a group of traders prosecuted for their defiance of the Weights and Measures Act[33] and the Price Marking Order.[34]
- BWMA gives detailed advice on how traders can circumvent regulations mandating metric weights and measures.[35]
- BWMA members have published a number of books arguing for customary measures. These include The General Rule by BWMA President Vivian Linacre (Squeeze Press) and About the Size of It by Warwick Cairns.
- The BWMA has published a "rogues' gallery" of those they label "Metric Culprits." These include a long list of individuals and bodies that have advocated or supported metrication, including the Irish Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, who metricated road signs in Republic of Ireland in 2005.[36]
Opposition
[edit]- These actions contrast with the UK Metric Association (UKMA), which campaigns for compulsory Metrication in the United Kingdom for all legal and official purposes, including trade and road signs.
Patrons
[edit]- Gwyneth Dunwoody[37] (1930–2008)
- Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly (1915–2010)[37]
- Sir Patrick Moore[37] (1923–2012)
- John Monson, 11th Baron Monson (1932–2011)[37]
Honorary members
[edit]This article is missing information about what is the relationship of the named people with the Association, do they acknowledge/accept the honor or declare support for the BWMA?.(June 2019) |
See also
[edit]Footnotes
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Appendix G - Weights and Measures". The World Factbook. Washington: Central Intelligence Agency. 6 September 2007. Archived from the original on 13 June 2007. Retrieved 25 December 2007.
- ^ "Metrication in other countries: Metrication status and history". US Metric Association. 15 July 2015. Retrieved 28 April 2020.
- ^ Lovegreen, Alan. "Past its Sell-By Date". The Yardstick (#1). British Weights and Measures Association. Retrieved 18 January 2007.
- ^ a b Scott, James C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press. p. 25. ISBN 0-300-07016-0. OCLC 37392803.
- ^ "BWMA/Consumers - Death of Measurement". British Weights and Measures Association. 15 July 2007. Retrieved 17 November 2010.
- ^ Wilks, Kevin Joseph (1992). Metrication in Australia : a review of the effectiveness of policies and procedures in Australia's conversion to the metric system (PDF). Canberra: Australian Govt. Pub. Service. ISBN 9780644248600. Retrieved 1 December 2022.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 8 May 2015.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ [1] Archived 16 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Richard North. "AGAINST COMPULSORY METRICATION" (PDF). Libertarian.co.uk. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ a b c [2] Archived 19 August 2010 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Consumer Affairs". The Times. 9 May 2007. Archived from the original on 23 July 2008. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ "Clearing Up the Metric Muddle". Gloucestershire Trading Standards. 4 April 2010. Archived from the original on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
- ^ "FPLA Introduction". Ftc.gov. Archived from the original on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2010.
- ^ "Wine Labeling Regulations" (PDF). Ttb.gov. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ "Distilled Spirit Labeling Regulations" (PDF). Ttb.gov. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ "REVIEW OF THE CONSTELLATION PROGRAM'S REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE USING THE METRIC SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT" (PDF). Oig.nasa.gov. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ "Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board Phase I Report" (PDF) (Press release). NASA. 10 November 1999. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
- ^ Adler, Ken (2002). The Measure of all Things - The Seven -Year-Odyssey that Transformed the World. London: Abacus. pp. 2–3. ISBN 0-349-11507-9.
- ^ Alder, Ken (1995). "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
- ^ Scott, Seeing Like a State, pp. 30-33.
- ^ "Histoire de la mesure - du mètre au SI" (in French). metrologie-francaise.fr. Retrieved 20 April 2011.
- ^ Quoted in Witold Kula, Measures and Men, tr. R. Szreter (Princeton, 1986: ISBN 0-691-05446-0), p. 286
- ^ "The Great Metric Rip-Off". British Weights and Measures Association. 15 July 2007. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- ^ "PepsiCo - Company - History". PepsiCo. 2006. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
- ^ "PepsiCo Our History". PepsiCo.com. Retrieved 17 November 2010.
- ^ "Metrication in Australia" (PDF). themetricmaven.com. Australian Government Publishing Service. 1992. Retrieved 22 August 2013.
- ^ "Database of archives of Non Governmental Organisations – BWMA". DANGO. 17 April 2007. Retrieved 17 August 2007.
- ^ BWMA "Ministers' Metrication Conspiracy"
- ^ The Telegraph: "Nigel Farage and Enoch Powell"
- ^ "British Weights & Measures Association – Annual Awards" (Press release). 21 May 2004. Retrieved 17 August 2007.
- ^ BWMA/Transport – De-metricated signs
- ^ Yardstick: Dec 2009 Archived 15 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Results within Legislation – Statute Law Database[permanent dead link ]
- ^ Results within Legislation – Statute Law Database[permanent dead link ]
- ^ BWMA/Business Issues – Survival Guide to Metric Law
- ^ BWMA/Metric Culprits
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w "BWMA Patrons and Honorary members". British Weights and Measures Association. Archived from the original on 7 February 2012. Retrieved 17 August 2007.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "Letter to Prime Minister". British Weights and Measures Association. 16 April 2006. Retrieved 17 August 2007.
- ^ jameslefanu.com
Further reading
[edit]- Books supporting metrication
- Metric Signs Ahead (UKMA) (2005) by Robin Paice (ISBN 978-0-9552351-0-8)
- A Very British Mess (UKMA) (2004) by Robin Paice (ISBN 0750310146)
- Books opposing metrication
- The General Rule by Vivian Linacre (ISBN 1906069018)
- About the Size of It by Warwick Cairns (ISBN 0230016286)
- Halsey, Frederick Arthur (1920). "The Metric Fallacy" (2nd ed.). New York: American Institute of Weights and Measures. LCCN 22014705.
Halsey Metric Fallacy.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help). - Cairns, Warwick (2007). About the Size of It: The Common Sense Approach to Measuring Things, Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-230-01628-6
- Linacre, Vivian (2007). The General Rule: A Guide to Customary Weights and Measures , The Squeeze Press, ISBN 978-1-906069-01-8