Is One World Government Possible?

Machjo · August 1, 2009

So you want to replace learning a potentially useful language with a useless one? It makes no sense. In fact pushing a euro-centric language like esperato exactly the kind of cultural imperialism that you claim to oppose.
Languages are nothing without a culture that generates masses of content from newpapers to movies to music. The sheer volume of English language material makes it impossible for a language like Esperato to compete. If English is replaced it will be replaced by a language like Mandarin Chinese - not Esperato.

If Chinese replaced English as the top dog, then everyone would want their kid to learn Chinese, with, of course, few succeeding again. And of course Chinese publishers would be quick to cash in on dictionaries, textbooks, etc. etc. etc. Even the Chinese-language music and film industry as everyone struggles to learn Chinese.

Also, you might not be aware of this, but while Esperanto roots are mostly European with some Hebrew (the initiator happened to be Jewish), the grammar is quite uniquely its own. As I'd said before, a Chiense could learn Epsperanto in less time that he could Japanese!

So while your statement might be true in relative terms, Esperanto culture is still far more universal than English culture which is mainly dominated by Anglo-American values.

Also, you seem to be going around in circles, saying that we should promote English because it's a major language. Well, of course it'll continue to be a major language if we continue to promote it. If, just like in British India, the UN suddently required its ambassadors to know Esperanto, ofr example, evdn if it didn't impose the language anywhere else, any parent looking forward to his child one day becoming an ambassador would suddenly want him to learn Esperanto.

In the time of the Raj, English was not very juseful in daily life, but it didn't matter because of the symbolic prestige of the language in the government.

The same woudl apply here. It would be the prestige factor in its use at the UN. In British India, that's how English started.

Now there is a difference here though. Unlike English, Esperanto is much easier to learn. this means that whereas India is still only 4% English speaking after 200 years of English, Esperanto would spread beyond the elites to the general population too.

Why do you want to maintain an injustice?

Riverwind · August 1, 2009

Also, you seem to be going around in circles, saying that we should promote English because it's a major language.

I am saying Esperanto is a waste of time because there is no significant culture that uses it and that will never change unless a large group of people start using Esperato as their native language and start producing cultural/entertainment material in Esperanto.

You seem to think that would change if only governments would force people to learn it. I disagree because no matter what governments do people are going to want to learn the language that delievers potential economic benefits today rather than a language that might deliever benefits in a few generations if enough people start using it.

Now there is a difference here though. Unlike English, Esperanto is much easier to learn. this means that whereas India is still only 4% English speaking after 200 years of English, Esperanto would spread beyond the elites to the general population too.

Ease of learning is an irrelevant criteria. Potential economic benefit is the only criteria and a language like Esperanto is a plaything of academics and offers nothing in terms of economic benefit.

Why do you want to maintain an injustice?

Because there is no injustice that needs correcting.

Wild Bill · August 1, 2009

"Esperanto? MajQa'!

Qu'vaD II' Devam!

batlh Daqawlu'taH!"

Machjo · August 1, 2009

I am saying Esperanto is a waste of time because there is no significant culture that uses it and that will never change unless a large group of people start using Esperato as their native language and start producing cultural/entertainment material in Esperanto.

There is already a cultural industry in Esperanto, including Esperanto publishers and and Esperanto music CD industry. For example:

http://www.esperanto-panorama.net/unikode/muziko.htm

m to think that would change if only governments would force people to learn it. I disagree because no matter what governments do people are going to want to learn the language that delievers potential economic benefits today rather than a language that might deliever benefits in a few generations if enough people start using it.

Now if the UN expected its ambassadors to know Espernato, for instance, would it need to force people to learn it? It would automaticvally mean that anyone who wants to wok for the UN would be wise to lern Esperanto. Because it's easy, many could learn it on their own. Seeing that some governments allow it in their schools already, that would increae its popularity by a litltle. I'm not saying it would change overnight, but just as the Raj made English attractive in the British administration, so UN policy could make Esperanto attractive at least at the U, causing the beginnings of a shift. You seem to be suggesting that unless change should occur overnight, it can't occur at all. You do realise don't you that most stable change is gradual, not sudden.

learning is an irrelevant criteria. Potential economic benefit is the only criteria and a language like Esperanto is a plaything of academics and offers nothing in terms of economic benefit.

That's because of a lack of government support in most countries. And I'd hardly call musicians just plain academics. They may be academics, but musicians too. So it's certainly not limited to academia.

there is no injustice that needs correcting.

Have you ever participated at an international conference, or talked to people who have. I have a few times, and can say that most stories I've heard involved native English speakers talking the whole time, with the rest sometimes even being at a loss.

Machjo · August 1, 2009

"Esperanto? MajQa'!
Qu'vaD II' Devam!

batlh Daqawlu'taH!"

Sorry, I don't know Klingon. But I'd like to know: did you find it easier than French? And by how much?

Wild Bill · August 1, 2009

Sorry, I don't know Klingon. But I'd like to know: did you find it easier than French? And by how much?

I'm not fluent in Klingon, so I can't make a fair comparison. There does seem to be more consistency in Klingon with tenses and such, which is not surprising for what is really an artificial language, like Esperanto.

I had 5 years of high school french. I was the type of student who would travel uptown to a French bookstore and by a copy of Playboy, en francais. Of course, I would get caught reading it in french class, just to make the point that the articles were improving my reading comprehension! :lol:

Afterwards, I discovered that my education forever branded me as an Anglo! In the interests of Canadian unity, they taught us all European French!

Go figure! It took working for some years and reporting to a sales office in Pointe Claire make my accent a bit more acceptable.

Remiel · August 1, 2009

While there may be merit to the idea that a language needs a culture to support it, it does not follow that that culture must be one that speaks it as its first language. Consider how many sub-cultures and professions have their own way of doing things, to an extent. Almost no-one grows up speaking such sub-languages as their native tongue, and yet the continue to thrive and even project themselves outward (like geek culture, for instance).

There would easily be enough of a sub-culture in an international union to allow a language particular to it to survive.

But I agree that no such union is possible with such a rot as jockeying for position during the formation of its constitution being formed. Which is unfortunate, because I would not be surprised if there are only two possible ways for humanity to survive to 2100: Either we form some kind of effective international union, or we have another dark age of sorts setting us back in our scientific progression, because in 2100 the means of destruction available to even the most common of people will likely be mind boggling. In otherwords, we need to reign in conflict before even a country like North Korea can build a weapon to destroy the Earth rather than just destroy a city or two.

Machjo · August 1, 2009

While there may be merit to the idea that a language needs a culture to support it, it does not follow that that culture must be one that speaks it as its first language. Consider how many sub-cultures and professions have their own way of doing things, to an extent. Almost no-one grows up speaking such sub-languages as their native tongue, and yet the continue to thrive and even project themselves outward (like geek culture, for instance).

I fully agree that a culture need not necessarily be an ethnic culture. Esperanto does have a culture. It may not be as developed as English culture, but then again, English culture was not very developed either when all educated Englishmen preferred to write in Latin and looked down on their own mother-tongue, as is common in many colonized minds today with regards to English.

This does not mean English culture then didn't exist, but rather simply that it wasn't as developed as Latin, but the potential was always there, as is the case with any language.

There would easily be enough of a sub-culture in an international union to allow a language particular to it to survive.

Fully agreed. I'd add to that that no one would ever force anyone to use the international language all the time. The point of it would be to serve as an auxiliary language when no other common language was shared, a pivot language, or bridge language if you will.

But I agree that no such union is possible with such a rot as jockeying for position during the formation of its constitution being formed. Which is unfortunate, because I would not be surprised if there are only two possible ways for humanity to survive to 2100: Either we form some kind of effective international union, or we have another dark age of sorts setting us back in our scientific progression, because in 2100 the means of destruction available to even the most common of people will likely be mind boggling. In otherwords, we need to reign in conflict before even a country like North Korea can build a weapon to destroy the Earth rather than just destroy a city or two.

I think you're exaggerating here, but I will still agree with you in principle, that world unity has become necessary if we want to advance and not fall behind in the world of today. The nation state has developed as far as it can in the face o modern technologies. It's time for the next step, just as it was when we had to go from the city state to the nation state.

Riverwind · August 1, 2009

There is already a cultural industry in Esperanto, including Esperanto publishers and and Esperanto music CD industry.

Nothing that can be compared to the mammoth English language material or even the material available for any real language spoken by real societies.

Now if the UN expected its ambassadors to know Espernato, for instance, would it need to force people to learn it?

You have an exagerrated view of the importance of the UN. The overwhelming majority of international communication takes place for business reasons and no one who is primarily concerned with business will learn esperanto because of government mandates. The best you could hope for is they would learn it after they have learned all of the other languages that they consider necessary for their business and that will include English.

That's because of a lack of government support in most countries. And I'd hardly call musicians just plain academics. They may be academics, but musicians too. So it's certainly not limited to academia.

Languages cannot be imposed from the top. People have to want to use the language before they will learn it.

Have you ever participated at an international conference, or talked to people who have. I have a few times, and can say that most stories I've heard involved native English speakers talking the whole time, with the rest sometimes even being at a loss.

I don't see your point. International events are conducted in English because that is the common language for most attendees.

I am curious if you speak any other real languages. I have studied 4 and speak one non-European language well enough to conduct business in it. One thing that I have learned is the actual words that people use to communicate are much less important that the culture that the person comes from. A Chinese person speaking Esperanto still thinks like a Chinese and relies on Chinese cultural reference points that cannot be translated by simply assigning new sounds to words.

For example, the number '4' to Chinese is associated with death and they have no problem with the number '13'. This is one trivial but clear example of why a language cannot exist without a culture and that learning a language requires that one learn the culture that created the language.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Riverwind

benny · August 2, 2009

One government means one army free to label all its opponents as terrorists.

Edited August 2, 2009 by benny

Remiel · August 2, 2009

One government means one army free to label all its opponents as terrorists.

I know what you are getting at, but consider that even in the current system of many states, being labelled as a terrorist by any government usually works out badly for you in almost every country.

I am not convinced that the dangers of authoritarianism are significantly more in a single world state than in any other normal state with an excessively large population. In theory, there is no absolute authority above any current state, thus in effect the really powerful ones are already under all of the same pressures a world government would be.

benny · August 2, 2009

I know what you are getting at, but consider that even in the current system of many states, being labelled as a terrorist by any government usually works out badly for you in almost every country.

Many governments mean many armies that cannot be easily labeled as terrorist groups.

Edited August 2, 2009 by benny

Machjo · August 2, 2009

I know what you are getting at, but consider that even in the current system of many states, being labelled as a terrorist by any government usually works out badly for you in almost every country.
I am not convinced that the dangers of authoritarianism are significantly more in a single world state than in any other normal state with an excessively large population. In theory, there is no absolute authority above any current state, thus in effect the really powerful ones are already under all of the same pressures a world government would be.

Another point: An international military force would also be open to global recruitment, thus making it difficult for such a force to be used for any kind of imperialist expansion.

Machjo · August 2, 2009

For example, the number '4' to Chinese is associated with death and they have no problem with the number '13'. This is one trivial but clear example of why a language cannot exist without a culture and that learning a language requires that one learn the culture that created the language.

Tai qiguai. Wode hanzi bu xing, danshi wo keyi yong Pinyin. Yong Hanyu de hou, wo zhidao youde ren bu ganjue 4 bu xing, danshi 13 keyi. Yingwen fanguolai. Danshi, wo keyi you lianzhong yuyan he duo zhong yuyan he duozhong wenhua, bu shi ma?

Shijieyu yiyang. Wo keyi hui yingyu he Shijieyu he xuexi yingwenhua he Shijieyuwenhua, bu shi ma?

Machjo · August 2, 2009

Many governments mean many armies that cannot be easily labeled as terrorist groups.

No, but the armies tend to be ethnically quite homogeneous within.

benny · August 2, 2009

No

Can you imagine the US labeling all foreign armies "terrorist groups"!?

Machjo · August 2, 2009

I am curious if you speak any other real languages. I have studied 4 and speak one non-European language well enough to conduct business in it. One thing that I have learned is the actual words that people use to communicate are much less important that the culture that the person comes from. A Chinese person speaking Esperanto still thinks like a Chinese and relies on Chinese cultural reference points that cannot be translated by simply assigning new sounds to words.

Oui. Je parle le français et l'anglais couramment , et j'ai étudié un peut d'arabe et de persan également (même si je ne parle que peut de ces deux dernier, faute de temps). Je peut foncionné en mandarin parlé aussi.

Machjo · August 2, 2009

Can you imagine the US labeling all foreign armies "terrorist groups"!?

No, but it's also easy for US soldiers to portray any other national group as terrorist if need be, since they don't necessarily fight side by side with them. In an international force, that would be next to impossible without the risk of infighting. This means that such a force could be used only when the cause is just not only in truth but also in appearance.

Machjo · August 2, 2009

And an interesting article here:

http://www.learnlangs.com/blog/2009/07/31/...-esperanto-now/

Machjo · August 2, 2009

I should mention too that not only do I know French and English, and spoken mandarin, and have studied a spattering of Arabic and Persian, but know Esperanto too.

But I also recognize that not everyone has the same opportunity to learn difficult languages, and this is where a language like Esperanto coudld put us on a more equal footing.

benny · August 2, 2009

No, but it's also easy for US soldiers to portray any other national group as terrorist if need be, since they don't necessarily fight side by side with them. In an international force, that would be next to impossible without the risk of infighting.

With only one international army, the risk of serious infighting is at its lowest because the civil populations can be fed in comfortable refugee camps.

Machjo · August 2, 2009

With only one international army, the risk of serious infighting is at its lowest because the civil populations can be fed in comfortable refugee camps.

Remember though, that we'd also have national police forces worldwide for such an army to contend with. An army is heavily armed, capable of destruction. But a police force is generally more numerous and better-placed to police an area. The army could destroy the population, but would then have to live among it.

benny · August 2, 2009

Remember though, that we'd also have national police forces worldwide for such an army to contend with. An army is heavily armed, capable of destruction. But a police force is generally more numerous and better-placed to police an area. The army could destroy the population, but would then have to live among it.

One world government means that all armies and police forces become one. I see all these proud officers going back in their own gated communities after their guarding duties around club-med-like refugee camps.

Riverwind · August 2, 2009

But I also recognize that not everyone has the same opportunity to learn difficult languages, and this is where a language like Esperanto coudld put us on a more equal footing.

Ok. So you argue that only the 'elite' can learn English and that government should promote esperanto to help out the non-elite. The trouble with this logic is the 'elite' don't care. They often already know English and are not that interested in learning something like Esperanto because it gives them no advantage. This, in turn, means the non-elite have nothing to gain by learning esperanto even if it is easier because the 'elite' will not use it.

Machjo · August 2, 2009

One world government means that all armies and police forces become one. I see all these proud officers going back in their own gated communities after their guarding duties around club-med-like refugee camps.

I would oppose a world civil police force. That should be national. So your view of a world government and mine are quite different then. Your view seems to be just one central government. I'd oppose that. I'd be more in favour of a decentralized world federation. We seem to have very different concepts there.