Introduction
Over the years, I have occasionally read various articles on the benefits
of metric conversion. Usually, the argument has been cast as being between
the “dumb” advocates of stubborn tradition, verses the “smart” advocates
of revolutionary science. My favorite opus from this genre was a literary
debate that appeared in Popular Mechanics back in 1996. The traditionalist
gave several arguments against conversion. Among them, that Airbus Industrie,
the European manufacturer of jetliners, used the American (yes, American)
system of measurement because it was more accurate. The English System
more accurate? The advocate of conversion, of course, repeated the same
basic arguments: the metric system is easier to understand, the metric
system is more “scientific;” and conversion is inevitable because most
of the rest of the world is using it. My view on metric conversion is rather
different. I think that converting to the metric system is no longer very
necessary. Also, I think that the Federal Government’s attempts to force
metric conversion will hurt the economy because conversion no longer offers
long term economic benefits. And, I think this for what is probably the
strangest, when you think about it, reason in the world. The rationale
for metric conversion is obsolete.
History
Over the last 30 years, there has been a quiet ongoing debate in Washington
over metric conversion. Many people have said that the United States must
adopt the Metric System or face irreparable economic harm. And, several
efforts have been made to start conversion. Yet, today, in spite of years
of arguments and Federal efforts, very little has happened. Back in 1975
Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act. The act mandated a ten year
voluntary conversion period starting in 1975. We were supposed to be fully
converted to the metric system in 1985. The conversion didn’t happen (and
the economic harm the proponents predicted as a consequence didn’t happen
either). Later, in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Congress
passed provisions requiring that by the end of 1992, all federal agencies
use the metric system for all procurements, grants, and other business
activities. The idea behind this provision was that the Federal Government
would force the nation to convert to the metric system by requiring that
all government contracts for supplies, construction, and other things be
done exclusively in metric units. The various government suppliers, being
faced with having to maintain two lines of products, one for the Federal
Government, and one for the rest of the country, would naturally see the
economy of using metric units exclusively. Later, President Bush signed
Executive Order 12770, to promote the transition to metric measurements.
Many plans were developed and implemented; for example, the metrification
of the nation’s highways was supposed to have been completed by September
30, 1996. Shortly thereafter, the effort collapsed when Congress refused
to fund the office that was tasked with coordinating the conversion. This
happened because Congress realized that the Federal Government, through
price increases of as much as 50% percent, would be wholly funding the
conversion effort. 50% percent? Consider the costs of building an “all
metric” building. I don’t mean “soft conversion” (that is changing the
dimensions in the specs, using 25.4 millimeters to replace inches, and
so on); I mean designing and manufacturing totally new building supplies
totally in “hard” metric units. Consider the costs, wire in millimeters,
ventilation and duct work in centimeters; plumbing fixtures all in metric;
all screws and threads metric; the air conditioning system metric to the
smallest screw; thermostats only in Celsius; the elevators metric to the
smallest screw; and so on. Now, consider this policy applied to everything
the Federal Government procures. The costs add up. Should we call this
reasonable national policy, or a form of neo-religious fanaticism? Today,
the attempts to start metric conversion continue. It is relatively easy
to find advocates for the change, but it is very hard to find anyone who
asks, “What went wrong?”.
What Went Wrong?
So, what went wrong? Why, after all the years of Federal effort, aren’t
we all thinking in centimeters, liters, and steradians? It’s really a very
interesting story. It was the unintended consequence of a hobby, and of
an attempt to start a small business. Four men totally upset the nation’s
plans for metric conversion (and they didn’t even know it). It all started
in 1976 (or 1940, if you look at this in a more basic way), when Steve,
a college dropout and sometime hippy guru from a commune in Oregon, got
together with a friend of his, Woz, a repairman at Hewlett Packard, and
began brainstorming about ways to make a little money on the side. Finally,
after a little discussion, they agreed on an idea. Why not make and sell
circuit boards to local electronic hobbyists? At that time, the electronic
game, “Pong,” was beginning to become popular, and there was a growing
interest in electronic calculators. So, naturally, they decided to make
a few circuit boards that electronic hobbyists could use to experiment
with games and electronic calculating. Because they were short on money,
they found a third partner, Ron, a coin collector and ardent right-winger,
who was willing to buy a share of the business. On April Fools Day, 1976,
they founded their new company. Research, development, and preliminary
manufacturing soon started in Steve’s bedroom (he was living with his parents
at the time). After a day’s work (and two whole hours of research and development)
they had their first prototype ready for testing. Soon Steve was out visiting
local hobby shops trying to drum up interest in the circuit boards. Finally,
the owner of one of the shops said he would buy a few, for $500 each, if
Steve could provide a case and power supply as well. Steve, surprised (and
no doubt wondering where he would find the capital for this major expansion),
agreed to this offer. Shortly thereafter, our trio had to move their manufacturing
operations to a new site to meet the firm’s growing needs, from Steve’s
bedroom to the family garage. Soon they had more business, and were able
to move to a more businesslike local. Shortly thereafter, in 1977, someone
got the idea that their customers might need a programming language to
use with their machines. So, they got in touch with a penniless waif, by
the name of Bill, and asked him to create a language. Now, two years before,
Bill had started his “very own” software company, and he needed all the
money he could get, so he agreed to their offer. And soon, our trio were
selling even more of their funny contraptions (they called them personal
computers). I guess there is only one more thing I should mention (this
tale has not reached an end yet, even now, over twenty years later). Our
trio had a terrible time deciding on a name for their firm. You see, Steve,
being the mystical type didn’t want to give the company a nerdy name like,
“Cyberdyne,” or “Microtechnic Technologies.” He wanted a name that expressed
the true spiritual nature of their undertaking. After some heated discussion
with Woz, they finally agreed they would call their business Apple, Apple
Computer. And their product (the circuit boards with case and power supply)
they called the Apple II (the Apple I was the circuit board they had originally
tried to sell to local hobbyists). Now Bill, he was a different sort; he
had no trouble with nerdy names. So he chose a really nerdy one for his
firm; he named his little software company Microsoft. Think about it. These
four men, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, and Ron Wayne (generally
forgotten), changed the world. Nobody saw the scope of the revolution they
were bringing. Those who were closest to them thought their ideas were
ridiculous. And, by the way, these four men also kept the entire nation
from converting (or maybe Federal Government from converting us) to the
metric system. And, it was all the unintended consequence of an attempt
to start a small business.
The Decaying Rationale for Conversion
So, how did these four men prevent the Congress, the Federal Government,
and the whole corporate establishment from converting us all to the metric
system? They made the rationale for conversion pointless. Think about it.
In a world where all nontrivial business, engineering, and technical calculations
are done on some kind of computer, does it matter that the metric system
is much less confusing for humans? Computers don’t get confused. In a world
where all nontrivial business accounting is done by computer, does it matter
that the metric system makes human calculation less error prone? Computers
don’t make mistakes (but their programmers do). This is a world of many
languages, and the Metric System is a language of measurement. Translation
is often required for business communications. In a world where most business
communications are done by word processor, where documents are sent electronically,
where documents are translated into other languages by computer, is the
metric system needed to insure mutual understanding? A function, or in
some cases a macro (a user created function), in the word processor can
find the offending measurements and provide a conversion. There was a time
when I could have argued that customary measurements were a good trade
barrier, because this forced foreign manufacturers to work in two systems
of units. Today, thanks to CAD/CAM (Computer Aided Design/Computer Assisted
Manufacturing) this is no longer true. Products are designed on computers
that don’t care about the measuring system used, and produced by computer
controlled machines to whatever specifications are given. Product labeling
and documentation are created on word processors that can easily pop out
whatever dimensional units are needed for the consumer. Once, it could
have been argued that metric conversion would help the US economy compete
in the global marketplace. Computer technology has made that argument as
moot as the arguments that customary measurements are good trade barriers,
and for the same reasons.
What is Left of the Arguments
So, what is left of the arguments for, or against, conversion? First,
the Federal Government’s vision of metrification as a total national (religious?)
conversion is delusional. Total metric conversion is something that is
very expensive. It involves the total duplication of expensive dies, jigs,
fixtures, tooling, and machinery. Not replacement, total duplication, because
the old industrial tooling will still be needed. Remember, there is a huge
quantity of nonmetric machinery, equipment, buildings, bridges, and other
things that will be needing spare parts for many years to come. This means
that a huge, and very expensive inventory of duplicate parts and supplies
will also have to be maintained for years. You cannot just replace one
standard with another. The last effort at metrification collapsed because
the Federal bureaucracy thought they could dictate cheap, quick, and total
conversion. Then they discovered, to their amazement, how incredibly expensive
it was. On the other hand, metric conversion is something that happens
every day in computers; it takes microseconds, and it costs nothing. To
a computer, it doesn’t matter whether bottles of solvents in a warehouse
are dimensioned fluid ounces, liters, or gallons. If the computer is asked
to comparison shop for the cheapest item, it doesn’t matter whether the
item comes in kilograms, or pounds, or both. It does not matter (usually)
whether a wire in an American export was originally dimensioned in mils
or millimeters. The Federal vision of metric conversion is something that
offers the nation no economic benefits.
A Little Deep Background
Today, we live in the age of the supersymbolic economy, what the futurist,
Alvin Tofler, calls the third wave. In just the last forty years, digital
technology has changed everything. Alvin Tofler, writing in his books,
Powershift, and The Third Wave describes some of the changes computer technology
is bringing. In just the last forty years, digital technology has changed
everything. We have moved from an age of standardization to an age of customization.
In the industrial age (only a century ago), in what Tofler called the time
of the second wave, the emphasis was on conformity and standards. Back
in those days, everyone woke up at 6:00 AM; left for work at the factory
at 8:30 AM; broke for lunch at noon; wore the same mass produced J.C. Penny,
or Sears Roebuck clothing; drank Arbuckle’s Coffee (once the leading brand
of coffee in the United States); and finally went to bed at 9:30 PM. Society
was strictly regimented. The emphasis was on mass production, huge numbers
of identical products made cheaply to be sold on a world wide mass market.
Manufacturing was supposed to be done in huge factories on a worldwide
scale. In the industrial age, a universal measuring system, universally
applied, made sense. It enabled the Capitalists to manage their multinational
empires on a more efficient basis. And, it aided the Colonial Powers in
regulating their vast empires (the standard political unit of that day).
Electronics technology, (after 1940) brought in a series of communications
and computer revolutions. These revolutions ultimately ended the age of
industrial mass, and of the colonial empires. Because of these technologies,
we live in an age of customization and speed. Computers have vastly expanded
our ability to handle information, and so have made the need for standards
less explicit. Computers are what make the return to customization and
speed possible. And, metric conversion is something that happens every
day in computers.
Conclusion
Today, converting the nation to the metric system might provide minor
savings to an Indonesian Billionaire trying to build an industrial empire.
It might please some egotist technophile who relishes the vision of a cloned
world, dominated by cloned suburbs, cloned shopping malls, and cloned Mcdonald’s
(the universal eatery); everything all the same everywhere, no matter where
you go. Computer technology has made those visions of conformity obsolete.
Then again, it may be that our national delay in converting to the metric
system has simply cost us the opportunity to do it at a time when there
would have been economic advantages; and today, conversion is all expense
with no economic benefits. But, computer technology has made it possible
to leap around language obstacles (and we are talking about languages of
measurement here) cheaply. In fact, this technology has made all arguments
about expense relatively moot. And that leaves us mired in highly esoteric
arguments between bureaucrats, businessmen, traditionalists, and indonesian
billionaires about what are in fact, at best, relatively minor cost savings.
For the rest of us, it no longer matters. Welcome to the information age.
I hope you enjoyed reading this.
Powershift, by Alvin Toffler, published by Bantam in 1991
The Third Wave, by Alvin Toffler, published by Bantam in 1981
“Yes, America Needs to be Metrified,” by Richard Bonner and Nick Brunt,
in Popular Mechanics, Sepember 1996
“The Decimal Dysfunction,” by Anatole Beck, in The Mathematical Intelligencer, Winter 1995
“Keeping the Kilo from Gaining Weight,” by Sally Croft, in Science, 12 May 1995
“Metric Conversion OK, but not for All,” by Sherie Winston, in ENR, 19 August 1996
“Metrication of Roadside Hardware,” by Malcolm Ray, in Public Roads, Summer 1995
“No Litering,” by Bill Kauffman, in The American Enterprise, November-Dececmber 1996
“One Word, Two Meanings,” by Bruce Bennett, in EDN, 18 December 1995
“Should Conversion to SI System Continue to be Debated?” by Autar Kaw and Melissa Daniels, in The Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, April 1996
“Tens, Nervous, Headaches,” by Jenny Houssart, in The Times Educational
Supplement, 6 October 1995
Note, the citation style is my own, see citations.
15 July 1998 - 22 August 1999