American here. I will both say I wish America would switch to metric, and offer some explanations for why it hasn't (and also offer some caveats).
As a scientist, I'm used to using metric. And for things like measuring distances, it's vastly easier than the Imperial system -- when using a ruler, it's much easier to read off 53.1 mm and 33.3 mm, and add them to get 86.4 mm, than to read off 2 2/32" and 1 5/16", and add them to get 3 13/32".
But at the same time, having grown up with the Imperial system, I have an intuitive feel for it that I still don't have for the metric system, even though I use metric regularly. For instance, I'm a trail runner, and when buying gear I pay attention to the weight. If I'm making a table comparing the weight of, say, different hip packs, I'll convert all the weights to ounces because I still have a much more intuitive feel for what, say, 5.5 oz feels like than I do for 156 grams. I think that's part of the reason people don't want to switch—they don't want to give up something for which they have an intuitive feel.
The other (related) reason is simply that people are people and Americans are like anyone else--they want to avoid inconvenience unless they are forced to do something (or can be convinced it's important). The US did make a legislative effort to switch to the metric system in the 70's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act), but it was voluntary and didn't take hold. Because the US is big enough that it can continue to function with its own system, people haven't been forced to switch like they would if they were in a smaller country. If the US were smaller, it would have switched. And if other countries were as large as the US, and used their own system, and could get away with continuing to use it like the US, they would probably have stayed with their own system as well.
And metric isn't always functionally superior. The spacing of Farenheit degrees is more suitable than Celsius degrees for expressing temperature when it comes to human comfort levels. As @sudo-sandwich said, Celsius is too coarse, so you have the inconvenience of having to add a decimal. It's just not quite as clean.
Of course, if you live somewhere the temp is always –40, it doesn't matter.
I would also caution those who argue in favor of metric in order to have a common officially recognized worldwide standard that if you want that, you would need to give up some of the units you are used to. E.g., while bar is metric, it's not SI, so if you use bars for barometric pressure, you should really use pascals instead. [I personally don't like either for atmospheric pressure--for that usage, atmospheres is most physically meaningful unit, because it expresses values in terms of something that gives them immediate context--the pressure relative to average earth sea level pressure. If you say the pressure at the surface of Mars is 0.0063 atm, that is immediately meaningful in a way that 640 pascals is not. Yes, 1 bar is about 1 atm, but that's just a coincidence; there's no physically meaningful connection of the bar unit to earth atmospheric pressure.]
As a scientist, I'm used to using metric. And for things like measuring distances, it's vastly easier than the Imperial system -- when using a ruler, it's much easier to read off 53.1 mm and 33.3 mm, and add them to get 86.4 mm, than to read off 2 2/32" and 1 5/16", and add them to get 3 13/32".
But at the same time, having grown up with the Imperial system, I have an intuitive feel for it that I still don't have for the metric system, even though I use metric regularly. For instance, I'm a trail runner, and when buying gear I pay attention to the weight. If I'm making a table comparing the weight of, say, different hip packs, I'll convert all the weights to ounces because I still have a much more intuitive feel for what, say, 5.5 oz feels like than I do for 156 grams. I think that's part of the reason people don't want to switch—they don't want to give up something for which they have an intuitive feel.
The other (related) reason is simply that people are people and Americans are like anyone else--they want to avoid inconvenience unless they are forced to do something (or can be convinced it's important). The US did make a legislative effort to switch to the metric system in the 70's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act), but it was voluntary and didn't take hold. Because the US is big enough that it can continue to function with its own system, people haven't been forced to switch like they would if they were in a smaller country. If the US were smaller, it would have switched. And if other countries were as large as the US, and used their own system, and could get away with continuing to use it like the US, they would probably have stayed with their own system as well.
And metric isn't always functionally superior. The spacing of Farenheit degrees is more suitable than Celsius degrees for expressing temperature when it comes to human comfort levels. As @sudo-sandwich said, Celsius is too coarse, so you have the inconvenience of having to add a decimal. It's just not quite as clean.
Of course, if you live somewhere the temp is always –40, it doesn't matter.
I would also caution those who argue in favor of metric in order to have a common officially recognized worldwide standard that if you want that, you would need to give up some of the units you are used to. E.g., while bar is metric, it's not SI, so if you use bars for barometric pressure, you should really use pascals instead. [I personally don't like either for atmospheric pressure--for that usage, atmospheres is most physically meaningful unit, because it expresses values in terms of something that gives them immediate context--the pressure relative to average earth sea level pressure. If you say the pressure at the surface of Mars is 0.0063 atm, that is immediately meaningful in a way that 640 pascals is not. Yes, 1 bar is about 1 atm, but that's just a coincidence; there's no physically meaningful connection of the bar unit to earth atmospheric pressure.]
Last edited:
