[Born in 1950]

“Easier to measure”

I see what you mean. This should be a satisfactory refinement:

Some suggest identifying people’s size not by height and weight but by their surface area as expressed in square feet. Others argue for volumetric identification expressed in cubic furlongs.

How is the argument swayed? Both for and against?

[Nateman]

You could measure a person's volume by putting them in water and measuring the water displaced. Our total area , however, changes every time we move. That is why skin is flexible , so that it can stretch or shrink as we move.

Even if that were somehow possible to stadardize , calculating a person's area is not a trival problem. It is like measuring the length of a shoreline. The finer the detail you are willing to use the longer the total shoreline becomes. It is known as the Coastline Paradox