• bottech [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago
    1. Is that a bad thing?

    2. There are still problems of people not understanding each other

    3. Having one agreed upon version that is taught in schools would prevent divergence.

    4. There are other benefits

    • jack [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago
      1. Yes, language is an integral part of culture and identity. Losing it a loss of that culture and a homogenization of humanity. Ask any indigenous person how they feel about this.

      2. These barriers are more political than linguistic.

      3. Whose version?

      4. Such as?

      • bottech [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago
        1. I dont have personally anything against homogenization of humanity, and besides these identities are completely arbitrary, what does it matter what sort of identity one has?

        2. The fact that i for example cant understand more than a majority of people in the world is purely a lingustic problem though fixing it would be political

        3. I presume there wouldnt be anyone's version, rather it would be a joint project by all the nations in the world

        4. For example right now i could understand only ~11% of human population i would say it would be much better if everyone could understand 100% of human population

          • bottech [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I dont know, i wouldnt mind losing my national identity, though thats just my opinion, besides my idea of a universal language presumes that all the nations agreed to it so im not advocating for anything forceful

              • bottech [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                Even if its not simple scenario i would say the benefits are worthwhile

                  • bottech [he/him]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Yeah i dont think that its some pressing concern but rather a project that could be undertaken far into a socialist future