Isaac Asimov — Technophobe

By The Metric Maven

I’ve read a lot of comments below articles on US metric conversion. Persons from outside the US often post a variant of this question: “Why on earth won’t Americans switch to the metric system?—it’s so much easier—why do you resist—what’s wrong with you?” It is an exasperated plea of confusion, which sometimes morphs into a visceral anger almost equal to that displayed by Americans confronted with the possibility of an actual metric conversion. I’ve been on the receiving end of this primal anger at the suggestion we change to metric. It is not pretty.

Isaac Asimov

It appears that Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) has described the roots of this reaction in a cogent manner in his essay “Technophobia.” The Good Doctor had used a typewriter for almost 40 years. His fellow writers had purchased and begun using word processors (i.e. computers) for their compositions. Isaac heard all the praise for the new device from other writers, but stubbornly refused to investigate these devices. “I preferred to pretend they did not exist and typed away stubbornly.”

His editor asked Dr. Asimov to write about his experiences of changing from a typewriter to a word processor. Isaac had to admit that he did not own one. The editor saw this as a great opportunity. He purchased a word processor and had it delivered to Isaac. The Word Processor would be set-up, and Asimov would write about his transition to the new technology.

The man who taught me how chemical catalysts work, what Olber’s Paradox means, what a factorial is, what relativity theory means, and countless other scientific concepts, was paralyzed with fear—by a word processor? How could this be? Technical support people spent hours with Asimov, who admits he wanted to quit several times over. The Good Doctor eventually did learn how to use the word processor, and was pleased how it
improved his writing experience. “But why I ask myself, was I so resistant to something that was sure to help me (and does) and that did not even cost me anything to begin with?” There had been many changes in typewriters over the years, but none of these caused him any monumental angst. He also realized upon reflection that:

Human beings learn how to handle numerous complicated devices in their lifetimes. The learning is not always easy, but once the complications are learned — if they are learned properly — it all  becomes automatic. The thought of abandoning it and learning something else, of going through the process  again, is terribly frightening.

For instance, the system of common measures in the United States—inches, feet, yards, miles, or ounces and pounds, or pints, quarts and gallons–is an incredibly complicated and nonsensical farrago of units. The rest of the civilized world uses the metric system, which in comparison is simplicity itself. Using the metric system would save us endless hours of educating our youngsters and be beneficial to our entire industrial infrastructure…..

And yet there is no question that the American public fears the metric system and, if it has its will, it would cling to the present system forever. Nor is it because the public uses the common units with any great skill. Very few Americans are completely at ease with them, and know, offhand, how many pecks there are in a bushel, or how many square feet in an acre, or, for that matter how many inches are in a mile. Yet we won’t change it for a system any child can learn in a day and remember for a lifetime. We invent reasons for resisting the change, but the real  reason is that we dread the process of re-learning.

It is my feeling that re-education must be recognized for the highly difficult and (even more so) embarrassing process it is.”

So why would it be embarrassing? Isaac offers no explanation.  From my viewpoint, I suspect it is because we feel we are reduced to an almost pre-educated state, like a small child. Do you remember when you were so young that you had to ask one of your parents what time it was?—because you could not read a clock.  It made you feel powerless. If you were  informed, as an adult, that new clocks were to be introduced everywhere, in place of the old, and that you had no idea how to read them, your response could easily be fear of returning to that helpless juvenile state. The reaction would probably be emotional and not intellectual. One of the first skills one learns as a child is measurement. It is understandable that the suggestion of learning a new system would be met with every intellectual excuse in your arsenal—as to why you should not.

The metric system is easier, but without learning and using it exclusively for a period of time, you have only your current experience with which to judge its utility. The 95% of the world that uses the metric system sees the situation from the other end of the telescope. They gesticulate with exasperation that you don’t see the irrational complication of the imperial grab-bag of units and methods.

I can only think of one way an American might be able to see through the other end of the metric telescope—and see how the rest of the world views us.. That is by using money as an example. We early on embraced the “metric system of money” called decimal currency. The United States was the first. We take for granted that there are 100 cents in a dollar. Do we use any other units?–of course not, no matter what the amount of money involved.  Suppose we have say $3,466 .56 in a bank account, we see dollars and cents, and nothing else. Have you ever stopped and said to yourself, “that’s just not enough units to describe money, I need more!, I feel constrained!” Never.

Farthing and Half Penny

Suppose next you wanted to make money by importing items from Great Britain, and they had stubbornly never embraced decimal “metric” currency. You would have to figure out the price of the item and then convert it to dollars. First you would have to understand that the basic unit of money was the pound, which is 20 shillings. Each shilling is 12 pennys pence.  Each penny could be divided into two half pennies, or four farthings. Now two half pence equal a penny, and six pence equal a “tanner”, 2 shillings and 6 pence equal one half crown.  A crown is 5 shillings of course.

Now that you have mastered the values of money below 1 pound, you are ready to learn that 1 guinea is one pound and one shilling or 21 shillings. So 1/3 of a guinea is seven shillings. Believe it or not, there are more values of British currency you could learn. But I think I’ve made my point.

It is easy to see how an American, looking at this situation, and wanting to do trade with a British business, would feel the urge to demand to know why on earth the British don’t use “metric” currency. It’s so much easier. An American could well react exactly the way 95% of the world population does when confronted with gallons, pints, quarts, ounces (mass) and ounces (fluid), inches, feet, miles, chains (yes we use chains to build roads), grains, and other assorted, and un-needed measurement units. The exasperation an American could feel, at the British refusal to adopt the obvious improvement of decimal currency, could easily cause them blow their top and ask: “What’s wrong with you British!–Why won’t you change!–are you fools!”

The rest of the world learned the simple metric system as children, and react with shock and horror at the complicated way we choose to measure our world in the United States. It makes no sense to them, and it shouldn’t make sense to us either.

Updated 2012-08-12

Related essay:  Longhairs


If you liked this essay and wish to support the work of The Metric Maven, please visit his Patreon Page and contribute. Also purchase his books about the metric system:

The first book is titled: Our Crumbling Invisible Infrastructure. It is a succinct set of essays  that explain why the absence of the metric system in the US is detrimental to our personal heath and our economy. These essays are separately available for free on my website,  but the book has them all in one place in print. The book may be purchased from Amazon here.


The second book is titled The Dimensions of the Cosmos. It takes the metric prefixes from yotta to Yocto and uses each metric prefix to describe a metric world. The book has a considerable number of color images to compliment the prose. It has been receiving good reviews. I think would be a great reference for US science teachers. It has a considerable number of scientific factoids and anecdotes that I believe would be of considerable educational use. It is available from Amazon here.


The third book is not of direct importance to metric education. It is called Death By A Thousand Cuts, A Secret History of the Metric System in The United States. This monograph explains how we have been unable to legally deal with weights and measures in the United States from George Washington, to our current day. This book is also available on Amazon here.

A Tale of Two Iowans

By The Metric Maven

Double Bulldog Dare Edition

Iowa Representative John Kasson

A primary motivation for my metric research has been to understand why the metric system was not implemented by the US in the late 1970s. Beyond the fact that the metric legislation was at best symbolic, and at worst a political joke, there has been almost no forward movement in our government for metrication in over 32 years. Why is this? Recently I ran across a tale of two Iowans which fits into this larger puzzle.

The first Iowan is John Adam Kasson (1822-1910). He was a Republican Member of the US House of Representatives from approximately 1863 to 1884. He lived in Des Moines and was a supporter of Abraham Lincoln. In 1866 Kasson penned The Metric Act of 1866. Kasson became a leading advocate for the metric system, and was made the Chairman of the Committee on a Uniform System of Coinage, Weights and Measures. He advocated for metric adoption his entire lengthy life. Historian Charles F. Treat states: “To him belongs most of the credit for the enactment of the 1866 Act legalizing the use of the metric system.” The metric system was made legal, but no date for mandatory adoption was set. There was great optimism for the future of the metric system in the US:

The interests of trade among a people so quick as ours to receive and adopt a useful novelty, will soon acquaint practical men with its convenience. When this is attained–a period, it is hoped not distant–a further Act of Congress can fix the date for its exclusive adoption as a legal system. At an earlier period it may be safely introduced into all public offices, and for government service.

Senator Sumner, who was on the Senate side of the legislation in 1866, was very optimistic about mandatory adoption of the metric system in the US.

The metric battle in the early years of the twentieth century came and went without metric adoption. As the century progressed, country after country adopted the metric system as it’s exclusive system of weights and measures. By the 1970s, The US felt the global metric tidal wave, but only introduced voluntary conversion. There was enough international peer pressure however, to convince many members of the public, that US metrication was going to occur. In the mid 1970s newspapers had listings for local social meetings to learn the new system. Many people were certain we were serious about metric adoption. One newspaper column on collecting, recommended that people go out and buy old measurement vessels and such, because they would become antiques with more value after every thing became metric.

On September 7, 1975 The Sunday Des Moines Register looked back at Iowa’s contribution in advocating the metric system (page 4C). The paper related that it was Kasson’s legislation that provided metric standards to all the states of the union. The paper was optimistic that a bill authorizing metric conversion of the US had a good chance of passage in the next Session of Congress.

The Sunday Des Moines Register reported on January 11, 1976 that a majority of Iowa’s manufacturers (62%) were for metric adoption by the US (Page 14Y).

click to enlarge

On October 31, 1976 The Cedar Rapids Gazette had a full page devoted to metric which showed a photograph of a dual unit road sign (Page 4A).

The plan to change over the nations roadsigns, as reported by the Associated Press, went like this:

A highway administration official said there is no plan to print both metric and mileage figures on the highway signs to ease familiarization.

The official said the action is in line with the national switch to the metric system outlined in the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.

The changeover will apply to every highway, road and city street in the country. Under the Metric Conversion Act, the highway administration can order the conversion even on roadways that receive no federal aid.

During the 90 days ending September 30, 1978, vertical clearance signs for over passes also will be changed to metric figures. Truck drivers accustomed to looking out for 10 foot warnings will have to learn to hit the brakes when they see a three meter sign.

Some American cars already contain markings for kilometers as well as miles, and automakers already are planning to install metric speedometers and odometers in all cars.

Motorists with old cars will not be required to buy new speedometers. They will be able to go metric simply by pasting a label over their speedometer.

Senator from Iowa Charles Grassley

I suspect that if we had converted all the road signs to metric in the late 1970s, it might have broken a considerable psychological obstacle  to conversion. But then another Iowan enters the tale. Representative Charles Grassley (1933- )  waged political war against metric road signs and single-handedly killed them on June 8, 1977. The Thursday June 9th Des Moines Register reported that:

“The Iowa Republican told his House colleagues that Federal Highway Administrator Willam Cox will withdraw proposed regulations that would have forced the conversion of highway signs to the metric system”

The Des Moines paper further related Grassley as:

“Denouncing kilometers as a “foreign system of measurement,” Grassley said that “forcing the American people to convert to the metric system goes against our democratic principles.”

The metric system was conceived and articulated by an Englishman, Bishop John Wilkins in 1668. Apparently because the French initiated its international stewardship and adoption, it is forever foreign. I suspect that—Now Senator Grassley—never bothered to research his forgone conclusion. He just didn’t like metric and had a Senatorial sized tantrum to stop it.

By October 1977, the US Weather Service announced it was indefinitely postponing its change to metric.

One wonders if Charles Grassley had not single-mindedly stopped metric highway signs in the 1970s–and who knows what else he has done behind the scenes to thwart metric since then,  we might at least have started metrication. Senator Grassley served as a Representative from (1975-1981), and from 1981 until the present day, he is the Senior US Senator from Iowa. One can only speculate how much the Senator has done to squelch all metric road sign legislation to this day, and the metric system in general. Currently, there is no metric legislation before congress, and has not been since at least 2008, and that legislation is anti-metric. For at least 32 years, the Senator has increased all the costs associated with physical creativity in this country, by opposing the metric system—single-handedly.

It seems very sad, ironic, and odd that a state which encourages education with great fervor, would elect the man who would stop the reform that could have saved each Iowan $16.00 per day–for decades.

When it was Iowa’s turn to have an image on the back of a quarter celebrating its acceptance as a state, they chose the one room school house where Grant Wood had gone to school. Why they continue to choose Charles “Chuck” Grassley to represent them, decade after decade, is a mystery to me.

The largest segment of Iowa’s Gross State Product is Manufacturing. On January 11, 1976 The Sunday Des Moines Register revealed that the majority of Iowa’s manufacturers wanted the change. So why didn’t Representative Grassley defer to that democratic majority?—where were his “democratic principles” then?

Senator Grassley’s polices continue to waste at least one year of instruction in our public schools because we have not switched over to the metric system.

Senator Grassley, passing laws against the future will not bring back, or preserve the world depicted by Grant Wood, nor should this be a goal. It is a false nostalgia, apparently personally motivated and saturated with emotion by you, that harms the manufacturing businesses that form the backbone of Iowa’s economy. It’s sad an Iowa Republican Representative, John Kasson, in 1866 was more far sighted and technically knowledgeable, than Republican Senator Grassley is in 2012.

Related Essays:

How Did We Get Here?

John F. Shafroth: The Forgotten Metric Reformer

Testimony from the 1921 Metric Hearings

The Metric Hearings of 1975 — The Limits of Social Norm in Metrication

Australian Metrication & US Procrastination

John Quincy Adams and The Metric System


If you liked this essay and wish to support the work of The Metric Maven, please visit his Patreon Page and contribute. Also purchase his books about the metric system:

The first book is titled: Our Crumbling Invisible Infrastructure. It is a succinct set of essays  that explain why the absence of the metric system in the US is detrimental to our personal heath and our economy. These essays are separately available for free on my website,  but the book has them all in one place in print. The book may be purchased from Amazon here.


The second book is titled The Dimensions of the Cosmos. It takes the metric prefixes from yotta to Yocto and uses each metric prefix to describe a metric world. The book has a considerable number of color images to compliment the prose. It has been receiving good reviews. I think would be a great reference for US science teachers. It has a considerable number of scientific factoids and anecdotes that I believe would be of considerable educational use. It is available from Amazon here.


The third book is not of direct importance to metric education. It is called Death By A Thousand Cuts, A Secret History of the Metric System in The United States. This monograph explains how we have been unable to legally deal with weights and measures in the United States from George Washington, to our current day. This book is also available on Amazon here.