Why doesn't the US use the metric system??

I was thinking about this as I was working with my daughter this AM baking, and to adust the recipe we had to figure out how many tablespoons in a cup, how many cups in a quart, etc. I, as usual, converted everything in my head to metric and I just showed her the rough metric approximations (tsp=5ml tbsp=15ml, cup 240ml, pint ~ 500ml ) and figured it out from there. She looked at me and said "why dont we just use that measurement in the first place?".

The metric system is much, much more simple than the Imperial system... it makes doing simple things like doubling a recipe, calculating distance, and scaling up fluid and weight measurements much easier. The US is virtually the only nation in the world that sticks with the old, goofy imperial system, which probably costs a whole lot of money (everyone else sells stuff or buys stuff in metric units - the US has to be the exception), and we know has destroyed at least one space mission.

Its a simple system to use. We half-use it already anyway - you buy pop in 2L bottles, all food items are at least marked in metric volume or weight, and people run 5k races. Why dont we complete the job and ditch these worthless british holdovers that even the brits ditched years ago.

I dont know whatever happened to the metric initiative in the 70s (but I'm guessing Reagan killed it because it was too French and would confuse his constituents) and I know getting the old voting crowd to actually want to change would be tough, but why has there been no major initiative in the US for the last thirty years to finally join the rest of the world in measuring sanity?

Because unlike $1 coins the government actually realized that if it did not take the first time that it would likely never take at all?

I think we are just loathe to accept change, and the older generations got us thinking imperial before schools got to us. Also although metric was taught in school, children never learned to actually think metric, but rather to convert imperial to metric, thus it was a hassle.

Why doesn't the US use the metric system??

It's simple.... we don't want to use the metric system..... seems rather obvious.


Thom Paine

I think most educated people agree that the imperial system has to go, but we've taken very few actual steps in making any of it happen. It really wouldn't be that expensive if done correctly. Almost every American engineer is taught both systems in College and in the job itself you will frequently find yourself using both. All we'd have to do is state that after 2014 no more products using the imperial system should be manufactured, and shifting the emphasis in school towards metric.

Technology replaces itself at an alarmingly fast rate, and in about 10 years there would be few legacy imperial products left. There would of course be some systems that would have to be completely replaced due to interdependencies, but for the most part the measurement systems do not effect interaction with other products, as protocols are usually standardized.

We simply need to have an intermediate generation that can use both and help ease the transition, which I think that time is now. We're the only civilized country in the world that uses it, and it's time to go. For those on the fence, just go ask a few people how many feet are in a mile, very, very few people can tell you. 5,280? How is that rational?


Countries who don't use the metric system.

Threegoofs said:

I was thinking about this as I was working with my daughter this AM baking, and to adust the recipe we had to figure out how many tablespoons in a cup, how many cups in a quart, etc. I, as usual, converted everything in my head to metric and I just showed her the rough metric approximations (tsp=5ml tbsp=15ml, cup 240ml, pint ~ 500ml ) and figured it out from there. She looked at me and said "why dont we just use that measurement in the first place?".

The metric system is much, much more simple than the Imperial system... it makes doing simple things like doubling a recipe, calculating distance, and scaling up fluid and weight measurements much easier. The US is virtually the only nation in the world that sticks with the old, goofy imperial system, which probably costs a whole lot of money (everyone else sells stuff or buys stuff in metric units - the US has to be the exception), and we know has destroyed at least one space mission.

Its a simple system to use. We half-use it already anyway - you buy pop in 2L bottles, all food items are at least marked in metric volume or weight, and people run 5k races. Why dont we complete the job and ditch these worthless british holdovers that even the brits ditched years ago.

I dont know whatever happened to the metric initiative in the 70s (but I'm guessing Reagan killed it because it was too French and would confuse his constituents) and I know getting the old voting crowd to actually want to change would be tough, but why has there been no major initiative in the US for the last thirty years to finally join the rest of the world in measuring sanity?

Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't a French idea. It is Arabian.

RabidAlpaca said:

I think most educated people agree that the imperial system has to go, but we've taken very few actual steps in making any of it happen. It really wouldn't be that expensive if done correctly. Almost every American engineer is taught both systems in College and in the job itself you will frequently find yourself using both. All we'd have to do is state that after 2014 no more products using the imperial system should be manufactured.

Technology replaces itself at an alarmingly fast rate, and in about 10 years there would be few legacy imperial products left. There would of course be some systems that would have to be completely replaced due to interdependencies, but for the most part the measurement systems do not effect interaction with other products, as protocols are usually standardized.

We simply need to have an intermediate generation that can use both and help ease the transition, which I think that time is now. We're the only civilized country in the world that uses it, and it's time to go. For those on the fence, just go ask a few people how many feet are in a mile, very, very few people can tell you. 5,280? How is that rational?

Countries who don't use the metric system.

Click to expand...

That is a big part of the problem, instead of changing the standard and making a reason for people to adapt, we left them a way out, and of course people take the path of least resistance. Kids may have learned metric in school, but every adult spoke a different language - one the kids were already familiar with.

Thom Paine said:

Why doesn't the US use the metric system??

It's simple.... we don't want to use the metric system..... seems rather obvious.


Thom Paine

Click to expand...

This would fit into the category 'Conservatives- it's why we can't have nice things'....

The metric system is simpler for some things, but not everything. For instance, it's easier to repeatedly divide by two in the imperial system than the metric, certainly for units of weight, volume, and length. This is a definite advantage in reducing recipes and cutting lumber.

marduc said:

Because unlike $1 coins the government actually realized that if it did not take the first time that it would likely never take at all?

I think we are just loathe to accept change, and the older generations got us thinking imperial before schools got to us. Also although metric was taught in school, children never learned to actually think metric, but rather to convert imperial to metric, thus it was a hassle.

Click to expand...

Much like $1 coins, they would immediately 'take' if you ditched the $1 bill. Similar with metric and imperial. Ditch imperial, and metric gets used.

Threegoofs said:

I dont know whatever happened to the metric initiative in the 70s (but I'm guessing Reagan killed it because it was too French and would confuse his constituents) and I know getting the old voting crowd to actually want to change would be tough, but why has there been no major initiative in the US for the last thirty years to finally join the rest of the world in measuring sanity?

Click to expand...

An idea of what was "culturally superior" is the simplest answer. The 1970s attempt one of six attempts (I can't count) to metricate in US history. The first being 1790, where Thomas Jefferson was the first to propose a decimalized measurement system before the US Congress. Had we adopted it, we'd have upset the French metric system by half a decade.

The other attempts came in 1821, 1866, 1896 and 1903. Each attempt failed primarily due to opposition coming from cultural conservatives, who either believed that the Imperial system was intrinsically better and because of that the world was soon going to adopt the English system, or denounced the metric system as a foreign attempt to influence us. The closest we've ever been to metrication was in 1896 when the HoR passed a bill to metricate, and the unpassed it in the following moments.

The 1970s was the 5th failed attempt that failed not due to Reagan or due to costs, but because the original metric bill in 1975 did not give enough authority to the Fed government (the NIST) to coordinate the changeover. What the bill did was create a US Metric Board that was authorized to run PSAs and provide educational support for "voluntary" metrication, but no authority outside of that. Which meant that most industries and organizations had no idea of how to coordinate amongst themselves or with others on how and when to switch. In all other metrication events in the world, the respective governments have had the authority to coordinate and set up a time frame (usually a decade) on how to switch over. We Americans attempted to metricate without actually drawing up a plan to do so, which only ended up wasting money before Reagan rightfully killed it.

Also mind you, Congress has absolute Constitutional authority over these matters, thanks to Jefferson's legacy. Article 1 Section 8.

Citizen.Seven said:

The metric system is simpler for some things, but not everything. For instance, it's easier to repeatedly divide by two in the imperial system than the metric, certainly for units of weight, volume, and length. This is a definite advantage in reducing recipes and cutting lumber.

Click to expand...

What? Easier to divide a pint in half? A tablespoon? A mile? A pound?

It might be easier to divide by threes, sometimes.

Threegoofs said:

I was thinking about this as I was working with my daughter this AM baking, and to adust the recipe we had to figure out how many tablespoons in a cup, how many cups in a quart, etc. I, as usual, converted everything in my head to metric and I just showed her the rough metric approximations (tsp=5ml tbsp=15ml, cup 240ml, pint ~ 500ml ) and figured it out from there. She looked at me and said "why dont we just use that measurement in the first place?".

The metric system is much, much more simple than the Imperial system... it makes doing simple things like doubling a recipe, calculating distance, and scaling up fluid and weight measurements much easier. The US is virtually the only nation in the world that sticks with the old, goofy imperial system, which probably costs a whole lot of money (everyone else sells stuff or buys stuff in metric units - the US has to be the exception), and we know has destroyed at least one space mission.

Its a simple system to use. We half-use it already anyway - you buy pop in 2L bottles, all food items are at least marked in metric volume or weight, and people run 5k races. Why dont we complete the job and ditch these worthless british holdovers that even the brits ditched years ago.

I dont know whatever happened to the metric initiative in the 70s (but I'm guessing Reagan killed it because it was too French and would confuse his constituents) and I know getting the old voting crowd to actually want to change would be tough, but why has there been no major initiative in the US for the last thirty years to finally join the rest of the world in measuring sanity?

Click to expand...

people fear change even when it is best for them...I grew up with Imperial...now live with metric most of the time but even here in Canada, some things are still dual.

a friend of mine asked his grandkid to go into the house and get the yard stick. "What's a yard stick poppa". "Don't be a smartass, just go get it please." (Kid stands there all perplexed) It finally dawns on poppa to ask for the metre stick.

Citizen.Seven said:

The metric system is simpler for some things, but not everything. For instance, it's easier to repeatedly divide by two in the imperial system than the metric, certainly for units of weight, volume, and length. This is a definite advantage in reducing recipes and cutting lumber.

Click to expand...

Do you mind explaining that to me, as it doesn't really make any sense. The metric system remains base 10 for the entire scale, while the imperial system changes bases at each step, IE: base 10, base 12, base 16, etc., which makes it EXTREMELY difficult to do anything other than minor calculations in your head.

I use engineering notation for all of my math and number usage, IE: 400 A E-3 (400 miliamps), 400 A E-6 (400 microamps), 400 E-9 (400 nanoamps), etc. There is zero mathematical advantage to imperial.

Example:

SI
2 kg / 2 = 1 kg
1 kg / 2 = .5 kg or 500 g
500 g / 2 = 250 g

For the transition from kg to g base 10 stays constant, so the math rules stay the same.

Imperial
2 lb / 2 = 1 lb
1 lb / 2 = 8 oz??? (switch to base 16, here you had to memorize that there's a base transition and do the conversion in your head)
8 oz / 2 = 4 oz

What advantage could you possibly get from that?

RabidAlpaca said:

Do you mind explaining that to me, as it doesn't really make any sense. The metric system remains base 10 for the entire scale, while the imperial system changes bases at each step, IE: base 10, base 12, base 16, etc., which makes it EXTREMELY difficult to do anything other than minor calculations in your head.

I use engineering notation for all of my math and number usage, IE: 400 A E-3 (400 miliamps), 400 A E-6 (400 microamps), 400 E-9 (400 nanoamps), etc. There is zero mathematical advantage to imperial.

Example:

SI
2 kg / 2 = 1 kg
1 kg / 2 = .5 kg or 500 g
500 g / 2 = 250 g

For the transition from kg to g base 10 stays constant, so the math rules stay the same.

Imperial
2 lb / 2 = 1 lb
1 lb / 2 = 8 oz??? (switch to base 16, here you had to memorize that there's a base transition and do the conversion in your head)
8 oz / 2 = 4 oz

What advantage could you possibly get from that?

Click to expand...

You have convinced me. Dividing by two is easy peasy in any language.

Threegoofs said:

I was thinking about this as I was working with my daughter this AM baking, and to adust the recipe we had to figure out how many tablespoons in a cup, how many cups in a quart, etc. I, as usual, converted everything in my head to metric and I just showed her the rough metric approximations (tsp=5ml tbsp=15ml, cup 240ml, pint ~ 500ml ) and figured it out from there. She looked at me and said "why dont we just use that measurement in the first place?".

The metric system is much, much more simple than the Imperial system... it makes doing simple things like doubling a recipe, calculating distance, and scaling up fluid and weight measurements much easier. The US is virtually the only nation in the world that sticks with the old, goofy imperial system, which probably costs a whole lot of money (everyone else sells stuff or buys stuff in metric units - the US has to be the exception), and we know has destroyed at least one space mission.

Its a simple system to use. We half-use it already anyway - you buy pop in 2L bottles, all food items are at least marked in metric volume or weight, and people run 5k races. Why dont we complete the job and ditch these worthless british holdovers that even the brits ditched years ago.

I dont know whatever happened to the metric initiative in the 70s (but I'm guessing Reagan killed it because it was too French and would confuse his constituents) and I know getting the old voting crowd to actually want to change would be tough, but why has there been no major initiative in the US for the last thirty years to finally join the rest of the world in measuring sanity?

Click to expand...

we do use the metric system... we just don't use it exclusively.

Threegoofs said:

Much like $1 coins, they would immediately 'take' if you ditched the $1 bill. Similar with metric and imperial. Ditch imperial, and metric gets used.

Click to expand...

Bingo, we have a winner here.

Many Canadians fought changing the imperial system and changing our dollar bill to coins. It's humane nature to resist change. The government, in basic terms, said "too ****ing bad." Now, decades later, most agree both were the right move.

Threegoofs said:

Much like $1 coins, they would immediately 'take' if you ditched the $1 bill. Similar with metric and imperial. Ditch imperial, and metric gets used.

Click to expand...

This reflects back to my second post in this thread. We are left with an easy out, so we take it.

and as a side note.. I am glad the $1 coins have not been forced on us so far, I hate coins and pocket clutter. Metric I could live with, I am familiar with it and can almost think in metric - at least I can convert with ease and get good ballpark estimations - even with celcius.

It's possibly an attitude that persists from the time when America sensed its impending ascension on the world stage. The desire to stamp itself indelibly on the global psyche. As if to say FU, we're America. We don't change for you. You change for us. We now set the baselines. But honestly, other than for science and technology, where professionals must employ it as a matter of course, I don't suppose it really matters. I certainly haven't noticed that America has suffered for its reluctance to standardise it. Personally, I put it down to a national foible.

If you keep dividing, you'll see. At the fifth division, you get 62.5 grams vs half an ounce. Half an ounce is easier to remember and further divide than 62.5 grams. For instance, divide each by 2 an additional 3 times, and you get 1/16 of an ounce vs 7.8125 grams.

Decimaliztion certainly makes some things easier, but thinking in terms of fractions has its advantages. You see similar results with inches vs centimeters.

Citizen.Seven said:

If you keep dividing, you'll see. At the fifth division, you get 62.5 grams vs half an ounce. Half an ounce is easier to remember and further divide than 62.5 grams. For instance, divide each by 2 an additional 3 times, and you get 1/16 of an ounce vs 7.8125 grams.

Decimaliztion certainly makes some things easier, but thinking in terms of fractions has its advantages. You see similar results with inches vs centimeters.

Click to expand...

Divide a tablespoon in half.

Half a tablespoon

Citizen.Seven said:

Half a tablespoon

Click to expand...

Brilliant. Now I see why the system is so great.

I personally find it curious that the US Military tends to use both. For example, under different circumstances it will express distances in both yards and meters, miles and kilometers. Calibers are expressed in both inches (.50, .308) and metric (7.62, 5.56). I'm sure there are other examples.

Citizen.Seven said:

Half a tablespoon

Click to expand...

Oh that's genius.

I wonder why scientists don't use imperial when doing measurements.
Oh, I know... because half a tablespoon means diddly squat.


What works for cooking doesn't work for science. And having a public that is using one system of measurement and an intellectual community that uses another creates a disconnect that shouldn't exist.

No system is great, it's just a matter of which system is easiest for a given problem. I use both, or neither, depending on what's easiest.