Would a Universal Language Make the World More Peaceful? (America, POV)

[Comprehend]

I had trouble deciding whether this should be in the debate or discuss area...


I think that if we had a single world language, we would likely feel more as if we were all the same people (brothers and sisters) and tend less towards violence.

Do you think different languages divide us and make peace more difficult, would a single world language make the world more peaceful?

Would a single world government be better?

[eudaimonia]

Originally Posted by comprehend

would a single world language make the world more peaceful?

No. English is already a de facto "world language", or largely so, and that hasn't helped much.

It is values that divide people, not languages.

Would a single world government be better?

I would be terrified by that prospect. No, this would not eliminate civil wars, terrorism, despotism, etc. If anything, it would only move government even farther from the people and make democracy more difficult. I'd say it would increase tensions in the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Phil Osophy]

In "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams there is this wonderful thing called the Babel Fish. You shove it into your ear and you can then understand any language in the universe. It is reckoned to have caused more wars and strife than any other single thing in the universe. Since civil wars are generally accepted as being the cruellest, there is perhaps more than a grain of truth in this idea.

[Fluffy]

English is not a universal language nor the universal language.

According to wikipedia, the most generous estimate for those who have some knowledge of English at 2500 million with 980 million speaking it fluently as a first or second language. This represents 38% of the worlds population and 15% respectively. Generously taking away the 27% of the total population below 15 years of age (generous because one would assume that a large portion of those would still be able to speak a language) and the results come in at 53% and 21%.

So using the most generous statistics available and assuming that those below the age of 15 are unable to speak, only 53% of the global population have "some knowledge of English" whilst only 21% are fluent enough to speak it as a language. This hardly seems to be a universal language by any account.

Having a proper universal language (one that was actually universal) would be very beneficial and would indeed make the world more peaceful by making the flow of information more free and thus dialogue between those with differences easier.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

English is not a universal language nor the universal language.

According to wikipedia, the most generous estimate for those who have some knowledge of English at 2500 million with 980 million speaking it fluently as a first or second language. This represents 38% of the worlds population and 15% respectively. Generously taking away the 27% of the total population below 15 years of age (generous because one would assume that a large portion of those would still be able to speak a language) and the results come in at 53% and 21%.

So using the most generous statistics available and assuming that those below the age of 15 are unable to speak, only 53% of the global population have "some knowledge of English" whilst only 21% are fluent enough to speak it as a language. This hardly seems to be a universal language by any account.

Having a proper universal language (one that was actually universal) would be very beneficial and would indeed make the world more peaceful by making the flow of information more free and thus dialogue between those with differences easier.

Statistics, Fluffy - "There are lies, Damned lies, and Statistics"

I won't dispute the figures you quote, but they include vast swathes of the middle East, the Orient - with their vast populations; that's what throws out your stats.

English is the "Universal language" even though Spanish could well be so, because of the vast areas - most of South America to start with - where it is the first language.

Go into commerce though, and it is Engliah that is most used.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by comprehend

I had trouble deciding whether this should be in the debate or discuss area...


I think that if we had a single world language, we would likely feel more as if we were all the same people (brothers and sisters) and tend less towards violence.

Do you think different languages divide us and make peace more difficult, would a single world language make the world more peaceful?

Would a single world government be better?

Very good question. Chomsky posits a Universal Grammar. If this is true, why such racism? One language would impoverish life, despite making it easier.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Very good question. Chomsky posits a Universal Grammar. If this is true, why such racism? One language would impoverish life, despite making it easier.

Yeah, but the days of UG seem to be coming to an end (don't tell Chomsky and Pinker) and the idea of emergentism replacing it (this was precisely the area I started doing PhD research into). Frankly it's complete nonsense and the only reason it has become such a popular idea is that people like Pinker are unusually good popular writers for scientists.

I honestly don't think that having a single language would make the slightest difference. I mean, I can think of any number of ethnic, religious and civil conflicts held between people speaking the same language (or languages so similar as to be nothing more than dialectal differences). One world language most certainly would not bring about world peace - but it wouldn't half make the world a much duller place.

James

[wizanda]

English misses many words in expression for definitive meanings, due to ending of words like in Spanish or many Latin languages, that have masculine and feminine in, English simplifies things, yet also it doesn't make for better peoples as some of the love in the language is lost (English sounds dull).

Yet one language would be helpful, I find it a pain learning so many and most people can’t, so to clarify the world…… it would help us loads, if we had a single language, with which to communicate.

They did try making one, yet it got no where and as my granddad said, speaking 6/7 languages fluently “language evolves”….

Which it does, as the more you learn of one, you find that there are many similarities across the world.

So rather then make a new language, use the one’s that exists amongst us….

Me and my X-Serbian Girl friend made Spanglishski = which is Serbian, Spanish, Pollish, English…all mixed as one to find the easiest route of explanation.

Yet within that many of our long Latin words, they were the same already, just a different accent.

Had this weird picture as think about humanity with Spanglishski, and to start a new tribe or family, which then grew and wham, bham, there is another country…..mad how life evolves, well beautiful, yet you know what I mean…well I hope you do….

As then in each of our languages, you can see what my granddad was meaning; it is through that process of different families gradually moving further apart, we lost touch and so languages stayed.

Yet now we have the net and a more universal language and approach is needed to include all, then it does look like English is very much leading things, as it is so simple, except for the tenses.

[jacquie4000]

I am really not sure how much the same language would bring us together. I think it is more culture that divides us, and our belief systems, and of course government. But culture above all I have listed.