Re: US cultural conventions

From: G. Adam Stanislav (adam@whizkidtech.net)
Date: Sun Jun 27 1999 - 16:29:59 EDT


On Sat, Jun 26, 1999 at 10:23:37AM -0700, Frank Sledge wrote:
>
> I prefer the traditional units because they refer to
> things rooted in human reality.

Hehehe. This reminds me of my days when I used to be a minister of a certain
religion. Just about every time I was approached with a request for a wedding,
I was asked for a "traditional" wedding.

I always had to ask just which tradition they had in mind. I performed many
"traditional" weddings, none of them alike.

So, when you are talking about tradition, which tradition is it? Different
parts of the world have different traditional systems of measure. That is why
in a connected world we need a common system, be it metric or anything else.

As someone who was born and raised in Central Europe, I consider the metric
system quite traditional.

I have lived in the US of A for the last 16-17 years, and I still cannot get
used to the system of measures common here. It is not rooted in my human
reality.

The most ridiculous objection against metric system was that it comes from
Europe (i.e., not invented here). So, where does the traditional system come
from? England, which is considered part of Europe.

> Meters, grams and liters are just nerdy abstractions
> with no connection to human experience -- which is,
> I suspect, why geeks prefer them.

Anyone who was raised with it prefers it, geeks or otherwise. The point is we
need an international system. The metric system is clearly winning here.

> I'm all for an international system of measurement to
> be used as an auxiliary, an adjunct to our local
> cultural units, rather than a replacement for them --
> as Esperanto is supposed to be an adjunct to our
> local languages rather than a replacement. But this
> international system should be based on human things
> and natural phenomena -- a unit of length equal to
> average human height, for example.

Metric system *is* based on natural phenomena. How many fingers do you
have on both hands? 12? 16? Nope. 10.

Adam



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:47 EDT