NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Metric System "

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #24


Proposed by: D-Rizzle

Description: UN Resolution #24: Metric System (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: I feel that this resolution is detrimental to my nations freedoms. If I am not allowed to choose what type of measurement system I want and still be in the UN at the same time than how am I supposed to retain my countries individulity,the entire point of having a nation of people is to have a place where all people who belive the same thing can believe that. The people of my nation feel that metric system is inferior to my nations meassurment system. By forcing an unpopular system on my people you are inpeeding my citizens rights, and not only my citizens rights but by forcing over a thousand Nations to do the same you could casue unrest in many societies, not to say that some extremely important resolutions may not do the same, but I feel that this resolution in particular is one of the most ridiculas examples of a reason to risk unrest in over a thousand societies.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 135 more approvals)

This proposal is meaningless, and only works to throw the UN Nations into chaos. with confusing measurement systems

There is an argument that universal metric measurments is an expansion of the idea of "scientific freedom". While not exactly sequitur, the idea of making the UN a metric body is definitely science-friendly as it allows easier exchange of scientific ideas between nations (no confusing 1.609 cnversions from miles to km), and makes it easier for scientific measurements in general (estimating a graduated cylider's measurement into tenths is a hecka lot easier than estimating a tape by 8ths and 16ths; the math is easier, too).

If a scientist wants to use the metric system he/she is granted that freedom but why should I have to force all of my citizens of which the magority are not scientists to use the metric system?

Wait a sec, let me pull up the resolution so I can be sure of what I'm saying.
Science has already coverted over to the far superior metric system from all other localized forms of measurement. I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard. This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling. This would breakdown barriers in sharing of research and in the international marketplace. Tourism would also be benifited from the common standard. This proposal would mainly help countries of poor economic standing, whereas the common standard would improve their ability to compete in the international market place. Science would also benifit from a unifide standard to taught in public schools, no conversions would need to be made.

Hm...

I think the only strictly binding clause in there is "I propose that all countries within the United Nations be converted to the Metric standard." The rest of the proposal is more of a convincing measure. And, while the line "no conversions would need to be made" seems to suggest that the spirit of the resolution is to bar all other types of measuring systems, I don't think that's executable.

I think, under the resolution as it stands now, as long as you do recognize metric measurements in your government, you're allowed to also recognize other measuring systems. I can see how this can be impoortant to nation in a cultural/historical/national pride sense, and I think it still fits as compliance to the resolution.

Another intersting point about this resolution (and you might try to investigate this to perhaps further strengthen your arguments), but what is the standing of metric measurements in NatonStates? Isn't that a real life reference? How does that play out? I remember there being a thread about this, and I remember reading some of it (there just isn't enough time sometimes), but I'm still not certain on how the ruling would be applied to this resolution. Hm...

Metric is logical, consistent, easy and based upon universal maxims.

There is no real logical grounds for removing standards of measure, unless you propose a even simpler system (which in the case of metric, is impossible).

On a side note, given the simplicity of the system, if you incapable of learnign a system such as metric, then you are incapable of learning anything in general, and therefore are classified as severly retarded mentally.

I feel that this resolution is detrimental to my nations freedoms. If I am not allowed to choose what type of measurement system I want and still be in the UN at the same time than how am I supposed to retain my countries individulity,the entire point of having a nation of people is to have a place where all people who belive the same thing can believe that.

The point of the Metric System - in the real world, anyway - is to bring together the scientific community to have one base system to use that way measurements and accuracy is maintained when scientists from different countries come together with different results.

Thus, the Metric System resolution does just that and does not limit country's from using both, as quoted here:

This would include all official research, roadways, and labeling. This would breakdown barriers in sharing of research and in the international marketplace. Tourism would also be benifited from the common standard. This proposal would mainly help countries of poor economic standing, whereas the common standard would improve their ability to compete in the international market place.

The people of my nation feel that metric system is inferior to my nations meassurment system.

Care to elaborate on that?

The metric system is clearly a better choice, most of the world has adapted it and there's less confusion among those who chat with nations who still haven't converted to metric! If your nation feels that it is inferior then they probably don't know math.

Metric is logical, consistent, easy and based upon universal maxims.

Universal maxims? What the Hell does that mean? Metric is based on Relativity? Or is this just an attempt to inflate one's arguement by using important sounding words, despite their inaccuracy. Did you mean universal constants, perhaps? Still an overinflation, but slightly more accurate.

Pity it also makes for a weak arguement, as Imperial is also based on "universal constants". An "inch" is a certain number of occilations of a certain frequency of light. Imperial may not be base10, but it is just as accurate for measurements.

There is no real logical grounds for removing standards of measure, unless you propose a even simpler system (which in the case of metric, is impossible).

Oh, I'm sure someone could make a simpler system than Metric, but that completely misses point. Repealing the Metric System Resolution would not suddenly force nations to abandon the Metric system, it would simple allow nations who were forced to adopt the Metric system the right to switch back to their former system of measure.

They would likely still use Metric in multi-national scientific capacities, just like America does in the Real World. The American scientific community uses Metric, even while the general populace uses Imperial. Repealing this resolution wouldn't necessarily cause problems in research.

On a side note, given the simplicity of the system, if you incapable of learnign a system such as metric, then you are incapable of learning anything in general, and therefore are classified as severly retarded mentally.

When all else fails, ad hominem.

The problem isn't "incapability" it is lack of interest. When a person has lived their whole life with a given system (be it Imperial or some other system), they see little need to switch systems. I know a couple of Canadians in their thirties who are still a little confused by the whole thing (for those who don't know, around 20 years ago, Canada switched from Imperial to Metric, which means that people in their 30's were school kids when the switch happened, so they went from learning one system to learning another).

To call people "severly[sic] retarded mentally" for not learning Metric is really pretty pathetic. I've been using Imperial for over twenty years now, and it's exceptionally simple for me. Therefore, from where I'm sitting, if you are incapable of learning Imperial, well... perhaps your mental qualifications need to be called into question.

Universal maxims? What the Hell does that mean? Metric is based on Relativity? Or is this just an attempt to inflate one's arguement by using important sounding words, despite their inaccuracy. Did you mean universal constants, perhaps? Still an overinflation, but slightly more accurate.

Pity it also makes for a weak arguement, as Imperial is also based on "universal constants". An "inch" is a certain number of occilations of a certain frequency of light. Imperial may not be base10, but it is just as accurate for measurements.



Oh, I'm sure someone could make a simpler system than Metric, but that completely misses point. Repealing the Metric System Resolution would not suddenly force nations to abandon the Metric system, it would simple allow nations who were forced to adopt the Metric system the right to switch back to their former system of measure.

They would likely still use Metric in multi-national scientific capacities, just like America does in the Real World. The American scientific community uses Metric, even while the general populace uses Imperial. Repealing this resolution wouldn't necessarily cause problems in research.



When all else fails, ad hominem.

The problem isn't "incapability" it is lack of interest. When a person has lived their whole life with a given system (be it Imperial or some other system), they see little need to switch systems. I know a couple of Canadians in their thirties who are still a little confused by the whole thing (for those who don't know, around 20 years ago, Canada switched from Imperial to Metric, which means that people in their 30's were school kids when the switch happened, so they went from learning one system to learning another).

To call people "severly[sic] retarded mentally" for not learning Metric is really pretty pathetic. I've been using Imperial for over twenty years now, and it's exceptionally simple for me. Therefore, from where I'm sitting, if you are incapable of learning Imperial, well... perhaps your mental qualifications need to be called into question.

Your argument is filled with so much ignorance and stupidity, it is pathetic.

"certain number of occillations of a certain frequency of light"..... redundant, frequency and "number of occillations" are concurrent terms... it would be more appropriate, perhapse for you have to have said the wavelength of a certain frequency of light. Obviously your understanding of wave mechanics is lacking. Under such a provision the "certain frequency" would be 11.8028526772*10^9 Hz (microwave radiation frequencies) given the principle equation, extrapolated, velocity / wavelength = frequency... obviously based on the velocity of light in a vacuum ( approximately 11,802,852,677.2 inches per second).

The only functional argument is national sovereignty, of course, that argument, as constantly put forth constant times through NSUN issues, is a baseless argument. The point of a measurement system is STANDARDIZATION of measure. So the only argument which would be float would be an argument stating there was no need for international standardization... So unless you wish to argue that point, drop the argument, because it won't float.

Imperial is also based on "universal constants". An "inch" is a certain number of occilations of a certain frequency of light. Imperial may not be base10, but it is just as accurate for measurements.


Now, of course, it's been standardised. But previously, there was no such thing. Before we were able to define lengths with such physical constants, we simply took the length of the king's foot and called it one foot, and took the length of the king's fingertip to the first joint and called it an inch.

There's nothing actually wrong with imperial or any other system. But converting between systems is such a pain. So it makes sense to have an international standard, and because the metric is the most widely used and the simplest to understand, it's logical to use that.

Yes, that is another aspect, within the scope of the metric systems universality of operation and inter-relation. Such is not available for the "imperial" system (I guess that's what they call it now-a-days).

pure H2O (Water) 1 cm3 (cubic centimeter) = 1 g (gram) = 1 ml (milliliter)

a 1 kg (kilogram) object accelerating at 1 m/s^2 (meter per second squared) will have a force of 1 N (newton), over 1 m (meter) use 1 J (Joule) of energy, and within 1 s (second) use 1 W (Watt) of power.

On the other hand, a 1 lb (pound) object accellerating at 1 ft/s^2 (foot per second squared) will have a force of 3.10809501716*10^-2 lbf (foot-pounds), and over 1 ft (foot) use 3.99411177988*10^-5 BTU (British Thermal Units) of energy, and within 1 s (second) use 5.65108184938*10^-5 HP (Horse Power) of power.

* hmmm, I wonder which system transverses types of measure quicker in calculation?

Let's look at metric units of measure

meters
liters
grams
volts
ohms
amps
watts
joules
newtons

meters liters and grams, can go to feet, gallons, and pounds....
you could use your BTU's in place of joules, and foot-pounds in place of newtons, but in mathmatics conversion of principles requires you to devote more time to your baseline math, rather then the conceptual inter-relation.
And while the "imperial" system has a functional equivalent to Watts in power and electricity in the scope of the HP, the rest of electrical principle is only governed in metric units... especially the Amp, which is what is known as a universal base, and cutomary has no universal base equivalent to the amp, while you could relate Volts as lb*ft^2/A*s^3 and Ohms in terms of lb*ft^2/A^2*s^3... of course, saying you have a 9 volt battery, is easier than saying you have a 213.57 pound-feet squared per amp second cubed battery, and it is much easier to say a 150Ohms of resistance than 3559.55 pound-feet squared by amp squared second cubed of resistance.

In general, I would argue, that if your science is operating in metric, it also logically extends your engineering is operating in metric, and as such, logically extends that your entire societies technology be standardized in metric.... it is the differentiation of conversion principles that have created more mishaps then anything else.

The only functional argument is national sovereignty, of course, that argument, as constantly put forth constant times through NSUN issues, is a baseless argument.

The fact that it's used exceedingly often doesn't negate it's validity. True, many ntions invoke the argument needlessly, but just because someone "cries wolf" doesn't mean there aren't real wolves out there.

Oh, and speaking of redundancies, perhaps you should examine the following construction:
...as constantly put forth constant times through NSUN issues...

Since you ignored most of my points in order to argue semantics, I think I'll take similar liberties. I'm sure this will quickly become pointless.

Such is not available for the "imperial" system (I guess that's what they call it now-a-days).
Amazing. You lambaste a system and don't even know what it's called. You further paint everyone who uses it as an idiot, while being too ignorant to bother knowing its name.

Either that, or you're being pointlessly snide.

[stuff you copied from google snipped]

In general, I would argue, that if your science is operating in metric, it also logically extends your engineering is operating in metric
GASP! Just like in America! Holy crap, Batman, there already is a scientific standard without forcing the general non-scientific populace to change the method they've been using for the past 200 years or so.

and as such, logically extends that your entire societies technology be standardized in metric
Bit too much of a jump there, sorry.

it is the differentiation of conversion principles that have created more mishaps then anything else.
What? One? The only one I can think of was the Mars craft a couple years ago that was screwed because of conversion problems. I don't believe this is some kind of pandemic.

And, again, you're missing the point. Would it help if I threw in some pointless insults? Maybe act like an egotistical jerk? That seems to be your prefered method in this thread.

I'll try this once more: The UN Resolution is pointless. The scientific community is already standardized. Go and read a scientific journal; all the measurements will be in Metric. Altering road signs will not increase tourism, nor would it do squat for international trade.

This isn't a "sovereignty" issue. This is a "UN wasting its time" issue.

And why shouldn't one know what its called? The only thing less logical than its base is the fact it changes names more often then a high school prom-queen changed shoes.

I'll try this once more: The UN Resolution is pointless. The scientific community is already standardized. Go and read a scientific journal; all the measurements will be in Metric. Altering road signs will not increase tourism, nor would it do squat for international trade.

This isn't a "sovereignty" issue. This is a "UN wasting its time" issue.

Well, there are some things non-scientific where an internationally standardised system would be very beneficial. Prime example - the Gimli Glider accident.

If you don't know what that is, back in 1980s I think, Air Canada took delivery of Boeing 767s, which used metrics. At that time, all the aircraft they had were using imperials. Long story short, on one flight they converted wrongly, loading 9000kg of fuel for a flight that needed 20,000kg and the engines cut out at 40,000 feet. The skill of the pilot saved several hundred lives; it landed in Gimli, Manitoba with no casualties and the plane involved is still in service today. But it could have been a whole lot worse, all because the people on the ground confused imperials and metrics.

Things like the Gimil Glider are why an international standard for measurement is a good idea and given the fact that metrics are not only the most simple but the most widely used, it makes sense to be using the metrics.

This proposal is meaningless, and only works to throw the UN Nations into chaos. with confusing measurement systems

Completely agreed. The United Kingdom adopted the metric system for their currency without too many problems. Having a simple measurement system allows more time to be spent teaching children more important things like English, Mathematics and Literature.

Hm.

So when's someone gonna proposal Metric Time?

Hm.

So when's someone gonna proposal Metric Time?

Probably never as most of the world has a uniform method of chronological measurement.

Probably never as most of the world has a uniform method of chronological measurement.
Hm. But one of the main arguments for Metric seems to be that base10 is simpler, and thus better. Therefore, a base10 time system would be better. After all, the current one is pretty awful.

The thing is, not all nations use the 'normal' clock anyway. What about lunar time? In any case, one of the biggest reasons for the metric system is the fact that people have to add up money etc on a daily basis; whereas in time, people don't have to.

Hm. But one of the main arguments for Metric seems to be that base10 is simpler, and thus better. Therefore, a base10 time system would be better. After all, the current one is pretty awful.

It would take time to devise a consistent base 10 time system. There are 3600 seconds in a day. It would be extremely costly to change the system now. The metric measurement was good because the world population was relatively small when it was introduced.

while the citizens of the Armed Republic of The Yellow Spot use the metric system, most feel that if peoples of other nations wish to use Imperial or any other measurement sytem, they should have that option. There is no justification for forcing a nation to comply with something so small and petty.

In general, I would argue, that if your science is operating in metric, it also logically extends your engineering is operating in metric, and as such, logically extends that your entire societies technology be standardized in metric.... it is the differentiation of conversion principles that have created more mishaps then anything else.

Actually, American science is operating in metric measurements. They teach it to highschool students in chemistry just for this purpose. They also teach highschool students how to convert something from imperial to metric and metric to imperial.

American engineering is all imperial standard. Having spent my formative years there, working in an engineering department for an industrial food production facility, I can tell you all about the wonderful time I have converting any and all equipment we had to imperial standard so as to keep my parts and repairs costs down. (It cost me more money to have a sprocket bored to a metric shaft than it did to a standard shaft. Every time.)

So no, there is no logic in your statement. Only assumption on your part.

As for your comment regarding 'what they call it these days' in the business, we call it standard. In the international community it's called imperial or imperial standard, and as far as I know, it always has been. If you've got any proof that it's been called otherwise (by someone other than an idiot tourist with a know it all attitude,) I will retract that portion of my statement.

Yup, you're right about american engineering being in imperial.

That's why hubble didn't work first time, some of the measurements were in metric, and others in imperial. (Or was it one of the martian probes? I forget.)

That's why hubble didn't work first time, some of the measurements were in metric, and others in imperial. (Or was it one of the martian probes? I forget.)
Martian probe. The Hubble's problem had to do with a warping of the main lens which had to be replaced, commonly refered to as the Hubble "getting fitted for glasses". It was, essentially, near-sighted, I believe.

I propose that this resolution be repealed and replaced with another resolution. where I recognise the importance and efficiency of a global standard mesurment, I do not believe the united nations has the right to proscribe the mesurment system employed by any member nation while they are conducting bussiness amongst themselves.

I therefore propose that a new resolution be drafted that retains metric as the international standard, and mandates it's use in international actions. However this resolution should also protect the right of any member nation to use what ever mesurement system as is pleasing to that state in purely domestic affairs.

also as a side note, who is going to pay for all this? the education system and transportation organisation overhaul in nations not currently using the metric system could be staggering. we must bear in mind that not all nations are ecconomic power houses. should they be punished for their in-ablity to implement such a proposal? can we in good concience alow a proposal to stand that so clearly enforces discrimination against people that use a system of mesurment other than metric? At very least a provision for funding the changes, in nations unable to comply for economical reasons, should be addressed.

Martian probe. The Hubble's problem had to do with a warping of the main lens which had to be replaced, commonly refered to as the Hubble "getting fitted for glasses". It was, essentially, near-sighted, I believe.

Yeah, thats the one. I think it was NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter which went splat into mars.