Completely agree that metric is the way to go. Two problems I perceive, however are:

1. Metric terms seem less suited to human scales. 5 foot 7 still sounds easier to cope with than 172 cm. And 12 stone, or 168 pounds, still seems easier to relate to than 76 kilos.

2. The metric system itself is sometimes guilty of inconsistency. For instance, the ubiquitous mpg (miles per gallon), has two possible metric replacements, and I do not see one being favoured over the other: kilometres per litre (direct replacement), and litres per 100 kilometres (which may be more useful, but inverts the idea and tends to confuse the issue).

Having said which, I am still a firm advocate of the metric system. If you have ever tried to deal with areas or volumes in Imperial measures (square inches to the square foot to the acre?), particularly if you try to do the calculations in your head, you know the sort of frustration that can result! Give me multiples of 10 any time. (It doesn't help that American Imperial measures are not identical to British ones.)

cheer

the sunshine warrior