Math-geek nitpick: there is a linear relationship between subunits in the English system. y = 5280x is the conversion between distances in miles and feet, and that’s a linear equation. It may not be the easiest one to solve, but it is linear. A linear equation is any equation that has the form y = mx + b, no matter what values m or b have. Metric just gives you easier conversion factors to deal with if you’re doing arithmetic in your head.
It also has the advantage of having to memorize fewer abbreviations for units. Especially if you don’t use “decaliter” or “deciliter” often, it might be easy to confuse the abbreviations for the two (or even to forget which is which, the words are kind of similar). I don’t know anybody who has all the prefixes and their abbreviations memorized. I would know the abbreviations for kilo-, centi-, milli-, micro-, and nano- off the top of my head- anything else, I would need to Google.
I just did Google it, and now I wonder- why is it that all of the prefixes larger than kilo- get a capitalized prefix, and kilo- and smaller get a lowercase one? If it was every prefix greater than 1 was capitalized, that would make more sense…
I added a bit to my post while you were writing this. The point is that for many uses people have standardized on one unit, that way you don’t have to put the units on the drawings, and when dealing with multiple parts of different sizes you don’t have to convert. If you need to do some mental arithmetic it’s easy enough to drop an appropriate number of zeros, but by using mm everywhere you don’t get instances where somebody cuts a part a tenth of the intended length because they thought the drawing said cm, not dm.
I’ve never used decaliter, but deciliter is the normal unit to use for volume measure in recipies.
And I know the abbreviations for kilo, deci, centi, milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, mega, giga, tera, peta, exa off the top of my head, but that might be because I’m a geek.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything but milliliter used here.
I take it you do have metric measuring cups and spoons? All the measuring cups here are still in cups. They probably have some kind of metric measurement on them, but I’m at work and they’re at home, so I can’t check. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any metric measuring cups for sale here, nor any cookbooks that use metric.
Even in the US, the teaspoon and tablespoon are defined as 5 ml and 15 ml, respectively. So you’re already using metric spoons.
Legally (e.g. for nutritional labeling), the US cup is also defined in metric terms (240 ml). It’s slightly different from the “customary” US cup (8 US fluid ounces = 236.6 ml), but close enough for most purposes. Some other countries have different size cups, however.
We have several measuring cups in our kitchen, common Pyrex ones as well as plastic beaker type. They all have metric (ml) markings in addition to cups and ounces.
Bit of a delayed response, got booted out, my subscription must be due.
@naita
I picked up metric measurement from next door to you, in Sweden.
I did grapple with it at first as I had never seen a millimetre in the wild before but very quickly adapted to the system in place, it all seemed quite natural and dovetailed nicely together.
I can’t help it but I just think the British adoption is half-arsed an cumbersome.
@HongKongFuey
I hear what you say, what I was trying to describe was the lack of linearity between units like drams, oz. lbs. stones and so on where the subunits don’t retain a homogeneous frequency while the metric system - naturally - subdivides its unit in steps of ten all the way up and down which of course makes scaling between the various subsystems comparatively simple, e.g. to give fuel consumption in l/100km is no great feat but people seem to think that MPG is simpler, due purely to familiarity.
People often talk of the massive effort needed to convert to metric, but really, it’s negligible compared to the massive effort needed to keep the American system. Sure, most Americans don’t really know the metric system right now, but then, most Americans don’t know the American system right now, either. If you were scaling up a recipe for a church bake sale, would you know how to convert those teaspoons to tablespoons, or tablespoons to ounces? If you pace off the length and width of a piece of land, can you find the area in acres? If you measure the length, width, and height of a fish tank, does that tell you how many gallons it’ll hold? Most folks can’t do any of these very fundamental calculations in our own unit system. The difference between the systems isn’t that nobody knows metric… The difference is that there’s actually a hope of learning metric, while there isn’t any hope that people will learn the American system. If we just stopped trying, we’d save a heck of a lot of effort.
For the non Americans out there. The manufacturing prints I deal with are in inches like this.
.705 ±.002
3.020 ±.005
They don’t use fractions anymore. They are all decimals. Regardless of the base unit all dimensions and tolerances are decimals. This should help explain why it’s not the difficultly you think it is. Tools are set up the same way, as decimals not fractions. With the Digital Read Out interface of most equipment now, they can usually switch the box to metric with a button push if they want to, so the industries are in a better position to transition every year. With electronic interfaces the difficulties of a tool using different units is mostly gone.
There is no benefit in the process of change. The benefit comes after (and if) the change is made. I appreciate it’s a painful process (I’ve lived through it myself here in the UK) - but it really is a more practical system to work with, because any measured quantity is only ever represented by one number - not several of this unit, plus a few of another, and a fraction.
The machines I work with (in Canada) are like this as well. From the interface we select metric or standard and the conversion is performed in the computer behind the scenes from the operator.
You can get a set of metric cookware from Ikea, I’m pretty sure.
Shouldn’t be difficult to convert over a few recipes - why not post a favorite? If you don’t want to do the conversion yourself, just post one in U.S. Customary Units, and I’m sure you’d get a fairly quick response.
We do use metric units a little bit here in the U.S. - for medicine, science, military, building automobiles, some sports. We buy drugs, health supplements, hair care products, many kinds of liquor and other beverages that are labeled in metric units.
It does seem foolish to me that we’ve gone through as much adaption as we have by adding on the metric units to the other complicated system we had. Since we’re not going to get rid of the metric units (um, it really is the better system), it’d be nice if the U.S. would just get over it. But I suppose we won’t.
All of us who support metrication just need to start using it more, like measuring off the house in meters the next time we need to see if the new furniture will fit.
Interesting. But given that I’ve never had the impression that Quebecers were more enthusiastic about metrication than other Canadians – we give our height in feet and weight in pounds like the rest of you – it strikes me as curious that metrication would be a demand of Quebec. I wonder if the reasoning was metric system = “the French” = Quebec.
Well, I think it’s quite obvious that the government would not be doing this. I find your example with the little old lady quite strange: she must have found an incredibly overzealous butcher, because I believe I could buy meat by the pound even today. (In my supermarket both the price per kilogram and the price per pound are indicated for the meat.)
Well, you lived through the change and I didn’t, so I believe you, but I’d have been shocked if it’d gone that far.
Ha, that threw me off to no ends when I was younger and made trips to the US/UK… Having been taught in metric, I always assumed “five feet three” was 5.3 feet. It took me some time, not only to realize my mistake, but also to accept the fact that anyone would want to use two different (and non-decimal) units in one measure.
The ironic thing is that reading this debate and the “why would we change our perfectly reasonable and accepted system to metric” arguments, I couldn’t help myself thinking “why would they possibly WANT to keep their damned 1 this = 12 that = 374.8 somesuch, when 1 this = 100 that = 1000 somesuch across the board is so much more intuitive”.
That said, after that knee jerk thought; since to this day I still have to convert euros to francs in my head to figure out how much anything is worth, I can understand the problem :D.
Something kind of neat to see in Paris is a meter built into a wall that dates from the time of the Revolution. The average Joe didn’t know what the heck a meter was, so they set up these little displays around town so you could go see for yourself. There used to be quite a few but only one (or maybe a couple) has lasted to this day.
Converting recipes is actually a bit of a headache - the US ‘cup’ is a volume measurement - most other countries use weight (for dry ingredients). The weight of a cup of granulated sugar is different to the weight of a cup of raisins is different to the weight of a cup of chopped walnuts. The weight of a cup of flour is quite variable from one brand or batch of flour to the next.
There are websites with lists of typical cup weights for common ingredients - but it’s not straightforward by any means.
Worst is trying to convert weight-based recipes to cups - cups are such a large measure that you end up saying things like “three and a quarter cups of this, plus two and two thirds of a cup of that…” It makes for very messy conversions, going in that direction.
Just out of interest… to what extent are metric weights and measures typically used and/or covered in US schools?
I was at school here in the UK during the transitional period, where both systems were simply alternatives - we all knew that the metric system would be the future, but we were grounded in both. I understand the Imperial system does not get much coverage in schools now (not that this is a problem).
I think that’s the only real way to effect a conversion from one system to another - over the course of generations. You’ll never convince grandad to give up his bushels and furlongs, and maybe never even get him to understand or accept the metric system, but kids brought up with it as normal accept and use it as such.
It’s the right thing to do, because it really is a better system. It’s been designed to be a better system (the system it replaces having not really been purposely designed at all).
You’re leaving it pretty open as to when you were at school, there. I remember at school in the late 60s, we were told we’d be changing to metric very soon now, shortly after the currency was decimalised. Still waiting, really.
As far as I remember, all I ever learned in school of the imperial system was inches, feet, and yards. Ounces in a pound? No idea. Yards in a mile? Couldn’t tell you. And yet the whole world around me was Imperial. The result was, I could only work things out in metric, but I had to visualise everything in imperial, because that was all I saw. How tall is someone who’s 1.7m? I don’t know – I’d have to convert it.
So I’m not that happy with doing it over the length of time it’s taken – it’s too long. Even my grandmother, who’s 93, wishes they’d make their bloody minds up.
The way things are at the moment, we’ve got the worst of both worlds. What are we waiting for? All the old people to die?
I was born in 1966, NZ converted to metric in 1976. I belong to the “tricky” generation. As kids we were taught by teachers who understood the imperial system but had to teach metric and had parents who understood the imperial system and thought metric was double dutch.
As a result distance, temperature, speed, weight and length (non person related for the last two) only make sense to me in metric. Baking/cooking measurements have to be metric but if a person tells me they are 1 metre 60 I can’t tell you if they are a giant or a midget, I need feet and inches. If someone tells me they are 50 kg I have no idea of their body shape, I need stones and pounds (American just pounds is too hard on my maths challenged brain!). Babies are the hardest thing to visualise though…I can only “see” babies in imperial.
That said anyone even 5 yrs younger then me looks at me blankly when I ask for weight in stones and pounds.
Other then those few kinks metric is SOOOOOOOOO much easier.
I’m similar. One of the reasons kg seems to have been picked up by a lot of people, but not me, was because weight classes in different sports were measured in kilograms. And I didn’t play sports, so I never really worked with weights directly. For that reason I still don’t know what’s which and why.
Mass vs weight also dumbfounds me, but that’s another thread altogether.
