08-02-2006, 01:23 AM
NON/NO/NEIN.
Disclosure before the screed: I learned Imperial measure as a child and still remember much of it, but except in rare instances or discussing things with truly elderly people I never use it. I do, however, find this arcane knowledge helpful when arguing against Imperial as a measurement because few defenders of the system actually understand it. Metric is so manifestly better that I never understood what the debate was all about.
It's hard enough getting honest weights and measures to use in both domestic and international trade without having at least an NSUN- if not NS-wide system. Don't mess with what works because it took a century for metric to become widespread after it was designed in the French Revolutionary period. The Revolutionary calendar (with twelve months of exactly 30 days each and five non-month holidays) was rightly rejected becase there was already a standard.
W&M standards are essential, but they are inherently arbitrary. Thankfully metric is an elegant and self-referential arbitrary system, but even so I would be against metric if it were unseating an existing system which was widely accepted. Arguments against metric (and for the Imperial system) were perfectly valid perhaps up to the end of 19th century, but by the 20th century the jig was surely up. Please, don't mess with it.
Quote: APPRECIATING the scientific advantages and the simplistic nature of the metric system,[/quote]
Thanks for conceeding the obvious, but actually trade is the most obvious advantage for most people. ISO standards have gone even further, establishing standards for shipping units (skids and such), something the NSUN has not attempted and probably shouldn't.
Quote: NOTING that the resolution imposes the costs of converting to the metric system onto all nations, regardless of economic conditions, upon their entry into the United Nations,
CONCERNED that the economic burden of converting to the metric system will offset the stated purpose of the original resolution, particularly in developing nations,
[/quote]
Why metric conversion? How many new NSUN members are NOT metric users? Similarly, how many RL UN members are not metric users? What about the economic conditions a multitude of weights and measures would impose on ever UN agency and UN resolution?
In RL (which you're not allowed to mention on Jolt forums), many nations have surrendered the legal w&ms long ago, including France and its regions. SI metric is not even "French" any more. Britain which "invented" the main alternative to metric (called Imperial or laughingly "Standard") gave it up so why can't we?
Quote: BELIEVING that Nations should have the right to choose their own forms of measurement,[/quote]
They do. If you want to measure in pecks, barleycorns, degrees Reamur or cubits, choose these measurements over the UN.
Quote: OBSERVING that systems of measurement may be as much a part of a nation's culture as language,[/quote]
Possible. Legal metric use does not mean forced conversions for phrases like "mile a minute" and "ounce of prevention" anymore than the adoption of the dollar (whether in USA, Canada, Australia or NZ) meant an end to "penny wise and pound foolish" and "not worth a farthing."
In Germany, where metric is legal, it is not too difficult to buy grocery items in "pounds" -- 500 gram increments. In Canada you can buy "pint" -- 500 mL -- cartons of milk. A metric tonne (1 Mg) is practically identical to an Imperial/Long/Gross/British ton (2200 pounds). These do not threaten local customs or speech, but they do facilite trade and consistent measurement.
If weights and measures are so integral to culture, what about the calendar? Why not scrap the international calendar now because its Christian origins are offensive to the majority of the world which is not Christian? If this passes, I think we should draft a Swiftian modest proposal suggesting this.
Quote: FURTHER OBSERVING that some non-metric systems allow even simpler division by a broader array of integers, and may therefore be considered preferable in certain applications,[/quote]
You mean British weights? With "stone" of 14 (not 12!) pounds and "hundredweights" of 120 pounds? Or maybe Egyptian feet of seven (not five) digits?
Again, if the world had accepted some other oddball weights and measures standard (as it has with the callendar), I'd say we're stuck with it regardless of how much more sense metric makes; however, it hasn't so we're not. I urge nations to vote no on this one.
Disclosure before the screed: I learned Imperial measure as a child and still remember much of it, but except in rare instances or discussing things with truly elderly people I never use it. I do, however, find this arcane knowledge helpful when arguing against Imperial as a measurement because few defenders of the system actually understand it. Metric is so manifestly better that I never understood what the debate was all about.
It's hard enough getting honest weights and measures to use in both domestic and international trade without having at least an NSUN- if not NS-wide system. Don't mess with what works because it took a century for metric to become widespread after it was designed in the French Revolutionary period. The Revolutionary calendar (with twelve months of exactly 30 days each and five non-month holidays) was rightly rejected becase there was already a standard.
W&M standards are essential, but they are inherently arbitrary. Thankfully metric is an elegant and self-referential arbitrary system, but even so I would be against metric if it were unseating an existing system which was widely accepted. Arguments against metric (and for the Imperial system) were perfectly valid perhaps up to the end of 19th century, but by the 20th century the jig was surely up. Please, don't mess with it.
Quote: APPRECIATING the scientific advantages and the simplistic nature of the metric system,[/quote]
Thanks for conceeding the obvious, but actually trade is the most obvious advantage for most people. ISO standards have gone even further, establishing standards for shipping units (skids and such), something the NSUN has not attempted and probably shouldn't.
Quote: NOTING that the resolution imposes the costs of converting to the metric system onto all nations, regardless of economic conditions, upon their entry into the United Nations,
CONCERNED that the economic burden of converting to the metric system will offset the stated purpose of the original resolution, particularly in developing nations,
[/quote]
Why metric conversion? How many new NSUN members are NOT metric users? Similarly, how many RL UN members are not metric users? What about the economic conditions a multitude of weights and measures would impose on ever UN agency and UN resolution?
In RL (which you're not allowed to mention on Jolt forums), many nations have surrendered the legal w&ms long ago, including France and its regions. SI metric is not even "French" any more. Britain which "invented" the main alternative to metric (called Imperial or laughingly "Standard") gave it up so why can't we?
Quote: BELIEVING that Nations should have the right to choose their own forms of measurement,[/quote]
They do. If you want to measure in pecks, barleycorns, degrees Reamur or cubits, choose these measurements over the UN.
Quote: OBSERVING that systems of measurement may be as much a part of a nation's culture as language,[/quote]
Possible. Legal metric use does not mean forced conversions for phrases like "mile a minute" and "ounce of prevention" anymore than the adoption of the dollar (whether in USA, Canada, Australia or NZ) meant an end to "penny wise and pound foolish" and "not worth a farthing."
In Germany, where metric is legal, it is not too difficult to buy grocery items in "pounds" -- 500 gram increments. In Canada you can buy "pint" -- 500 mL -- cartons of milk. A metric tonne (1 Mg) is practically identical to an Imperial/Long/Gross/British ton (2200 pounds). These do not threaten local customs or speech, but they do facilite trade and consistent measurement.
If weights and measures are so integral to culture, what about the calendar? Why not scrap the international calendar now because its Christian origins are offensive to the majority of the world which is not Christian? If this passes, I think we should draft a Swiftian modest proposal suggesting this.
Quote: FURTHER OBSERVING that some non-metric systems allow even simpler division by a broader array of integers, and may therefore be considered preferable in certain applications,[/quote]
You mean British weights? With "stone" of 14 (not 12!) pounds and "hundredweights" of 120 pounds? Or maybe Egyptian feet of seven (not five) digits?
Again, if the world had accepted some other oddball weights and measures standard (as it has with the callendar), I'd say we're stuck with it regardless of how much more sense metric makes; however, it hasn't so we're not. I urge nations to vote no on this one.