[DRAFT] Uniform Measurement Standard

[Travancore-Cochin]

My fellow Ambassadors, we note that as it stands, the General Assembly has not enacted a system or standard of measurement that can be used internationally. We feel that the absence of an international standard, is a grave threat to our collective scientific progress. Therefore, we have channeled all our creative energies towards the drafting of this proposal, which we leave to the floor to be debated ruthlessly.

Uniform Measurement Standard
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Education | Proposed by: Travancore-Cochin

Description:

The World Assembly,

DEFINING a "system of measurement" as a well-defined standard which includes a set of units to quantify anything that can be scientifically measured;

MINDFUL of the different systems of measurement that exist currently in different nations;

ACKNOWLEDGING that the use of such myriad systems of measurement poses an impediment to cooperation on scientific research;

FEARING that such a situation, if left unchecked, can soon become a predicament which will seriously impact the progress of the world;

RESOLVING to rectify this situation unitedly and coherently;

HEREBY enacts the following:

1. ESTABLISHES the International Committee of Measurement Standards (ICMS).

2. CHARGES the ICMS with the duty of defining, and thereby establishing, a system of measurement pursuant to the Scientific Method of gathering observable and empirical evidence.

3. ORDAINS that the phrase "ICMS unit(s)" may be used in lieu of the exact names of units of the system, while referring to them;

4. AUTHORIZES the ICMS to spread awareness and/or promote the system it shall define in ways including, but not limited to:

1. conducting seminars and/or training personnel to initiate them into using the system as defined by ICMS,
2. providing stipends and research grants to scholars using the system as defined by ICMS,
3. recognizing scientific work performed using the system as defined by ICMS,

and EMPHASIZES that the funding for these endeavours shall be obtained through the WA General Fund;

5. DECLARES that all bodies of the World Assembly and those funded by the WA General Fund shall only use the system of measurement as established by the ICMS, and no other.

6. MANDATES that the system of measurement, as instituted by ICMS, shall be the sole legal international measurement standard;

7. AFFIRMS the right of member nations to choose the system of measurement for use within their territories.

[Priatha]

If such a bill were to be passed, it would be more trouble than it is worth. Different units of measurement are not inherently bad for science -- conversions are rather simple with the correct equation. Further, attempting to institute a single standard unit of measurement will only confuse citizens of every country, who are used to using their own system. At the best, it will be useless outside the scientific community because the people will refuse (or be unable) to adopt their thinking to fit this new unit of measurement.

The problem with citizens' confusion also brings another problem: contracts and advertisement. Someone entering a contract granting him, say, 300 ICMS units of land for $500 in the legal currency might think this a good deal. When he gets the land, however, he might realized that 300 ICMS units is the size of a 100 units in the local standard of measurement, which one can normally purchase for $200 in the local currency. In short, one might overpay because they overestimate the size of something, or, conversely, buy more than they want. Since this is the only internationally accepted standard of measurement, will not all legal contracts have to use it?

Therefore, I find too many problems created by this bill in order to solve a problem that does not really exist. Simply making conversion formulas available for the various units of measurement used by different nations will solve it just as well.

((An RL example of this sort of action that failed miserably: I'm fairly certain that all US measurements were supposed to be changed over to the metric system. People more or less simply refused to use it for anything, except scientists who willingly adopted it without legal requirements. Again, though, even in the absence of such adoption it is a fairly easy matter to convert miles to meters, Fahrenheit to Celsius to Kelvin, ounces to liters, etc.))

[Grays Harbor]

Not this again. No. We are quite satisfied with the system of measurement we currently use. Should other nations care to use different, that is up to them.

[Tanaara]

The UnDelegate looked at the Delegate from Grays Habor and couldn't help but laugh "They never learn dod they. This has been proposed what...some ten times before and shot down every time. We need to make a master list of proposals that have never gone anywhere. so that the newcomers won't keep going 'Ah ha! They've missed this"

[Travancore-Cochin]

If such a bill were to be passed, it would be more trouble than it is worth. Different units of measurement are not inherently bad for science -- conversions are rather simple with the correct equation. Further, attempting to institute a single standard unit of measurement will only confuse citizens of every country, who are used to using their own system. At the best, it will be useless outside the scientific community because the people will refuse (or be unable) to adopt their thinking to fit this new unit of measurement.
...
Therefore, I find too many problems created by this bill in order to solve a problem that does not really exist. Simply making conversion formulas available for the various units of measurement used by different nations will solve it just as well.

Ah, but you misunderstand, Ambassador. This proposal is not about forcing people or nations to adopt a particular standard; it is simply about enacting a legal international standard, that can be used primarily in scientific research. We do see the applications of this outside the scientific community, but the primary aim is to aid in scientific research.

We also disagree with the kind Ambassador's view that "Different units of measurement are not inherently bad for science". We concur with the Ambassador noting that conversions are rather simple with the correct equation. But, with the sheer amount of nations that exist in the world, all of them using their own systems of measurement, we believe that this could give rise to major inconsistencies and problems whilst converting back and forth between these measurements. The possibilities of miscalculations are endless, and this will be an impediment to scientific research and cooperation. This is why we approach these harrowed halls with a proposal to create a uniform international standard.

The problem with citizens' confusion also brings another problem: contracts and advertisement. Someone entering a contract granting him, say, 300 ICMS units of land for $500 in the legal currency might think this a good deal. When he gets the land, however, he might realized that 300 ICMS units is the size of a 100 units in the local standard of measurement, which one can normally purchase for $200 in the local currency. In short, one might overpay because they overestimate the size of something, or, conversely, buy more than they want. Since this is the only internationally accepted standard of measurement, will not all legal contracts have to use it?

We point to Clause 7 of the draft which affirms member nations' right to choose the system of measurement within their territories. We reiterate that this proposal does not force member nations to adopt this standard. It merely creates an international standard, which shall be the sole legal standard as per international law.

Also, we are not certain why the WA should be concerned with this, because should the person in question use this system, he should have introduced himself to the system and have known that x ICMS units = y units according to the system used in his country. If not, then it is the fault of the person for not knowing so, especially when the ICMS conducts training and awareness programs and the like.

[Grays Harbor]

A specific system of measurement as mandated by the WA for all international usage is not required, neither is the creation of any committee to create and moniter usage of some "ICMS Unit" anything necessary.

[Travancore-Cochin]

A specific system of measurement as mandated by the WA for all international usage is not required, neither is the creation of any committee to create and moniter usage of some "ICMS Unit" anything necessary.

We disagree, Ambassador, for the reasons we have stated here:

We also disagree with the kind Ambassador's view that "Different units of measurement are not inherently bad for science". We concur with the Ambassador noting that conversions are rather simple with the correct equation. But, with the sheer amount of nations that exist in the world, all of them using their own systems of measurement, we believe that this could give rise to major inconsistencies and problems whilst converting back and forth between these measurements. The possibilities of miscalculations are endless, and this will be an impediment to scientific research and cooperation. This is why we approach these harrowed halls with a proposal to create a uniform international standard.

We reiterate again that the purpose of this resolution is to create a uniform international standard, which shall be legal under international law. It does not force member nations to adopt this standard.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We reiterate again that the purpose of this resolution is to create a uniform international standard, which shall be legal under international law. It does not force member nations to adopt this standard.

That would imply optionality, honoured ambassador.

[Travancore-Cochin]

That would imply optionality, honoured ambassador.

As we see it, it applies equally to all nations. Would Ms. Harper point out the exact clause(s) that implies/imply optionality?