[Splenivore]

We’re willing to shift our clocks by an hour twice a year to “save daylight,” whatever that means. Correcting for 500 years of clock drift is a far more tangible reason. It’s rather pessimistic to assume that the people of 500 years from now would be unwilling to implement this.

[extension]

Correcting for clock drift is not tangible in a practical sense though. We (allegedly) have good reasons for changing our schedule twice a year. Changing it because that's how people lived 500 years ago is not any kind of reason, and I think our ancestors will just laugh at the idea when it comes time for the leap hour.

So if these leap seconds are causing problems, I don't see any reason to keep them. By the time the consequences of getting rid of them are noticeable, they will no longer be negative consequences.

[SquareWheel]

I think the counter-argument is the United State's resistance to metric, despite the obvious superiority to the system.

[gojomo]

I'll be spinning in my grave, cryogenic storage tank, or positronic simulation matrix if our ancestors 500 years' hence are still observing (and thus familiar with) "Daylight Savings Time".