• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you want Peace and Brotherhood?

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
47,445
Reaction score
53,125
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Then everyone needs to be able to communicate with each other. Well almost everyone anyway.


Humans mainly interact in three ways: cooperation, trade, or force... and variations thereof.


In only one of these is communication less vitally important... guess which one.


It is difficult enough to engage in trade or cooperation with those whose culture, customs and norms differ dramatically from what you're used to... add in an inability to communicate clearly and the difficulties became almost insurmountable.

Diplomats have first-class translators to help them understand the people they are negotiating with, including parsing nuances in the language.


You don't have that. When you find yourself in a potential conflict or misunderstanding with people who don't speak any language you know, resolving that conflict is going to be extremely difficult.... let alone feeling comradely or brotherly towards those whose words and intentions are unknowable to you.


Forcing everyone to learn all of the world's languages is not the answer. There are at least 6,500 languages currently spoken on Earth. Even if we limit it to the relatively common ones, there are 23 languages spoken by about half the world's population.


Most people have enough trouble learning ONE new language, maybe two. There's a reason people who speak 5 or more languages are rare. It is difficult for most people to learn new languages.


The answer seems obvious: everyone learn one language, the SAME language. It can be a second language, in addition to your native one, but it needs to be the one everyone else learns... then communication is far easier, trade and cooperation become much more feasible and violence less likely.


At present, English is the most common second language in the world. That's a good start, but English or something needs to be taught universally as a 2nd language if we expect to ever have even the slightest chance at this "peace and brotherhood across the planet" idea.



The current number of English speakers, both native and second language, is estimated to approach 1 Billion already. 55 nations officially teach English as a second language; English speakers can be found individually in almost any nation in some numbers. Seems like an obvious choice.

Or if you don't like English fine offer an alternative, but SOME single language needs to become the Common Tongue of Earth if we're ever going to get anywhere together as Species Humanity.
 
Last edited:
In many cultures, especially Asian cultures, the language is so deeply tied to that culture that simply learning the words and sounds isn't enough. It's also difficult for those cultures to translate directly to English.

While I think the general idea of a common language is great I also believe that one of the ways we preserve our species is through cultural diversity and trying to understand other cultures. To that end, we have to be careful that the use of a common language doesn't become a crutch we can use to kind of hobble past other cultures without truly understanding them.
 
Then everyone needs to be able to communicate with each other. Well almost everyone anyway.


Humans mainly interact in three ways: cooperation, trade, or force... and variations thereof.


In only one of these is communication less vitally important... guess which one.


It is difficult enough to engage in trade or cooperation with those whose culture, customs and norms differ dramatically from what you're used to... add in an inability to communicate clearly and the difficulties became almost insurmountable.

Diplomats have first-class translators to help them understand the people they are negotiating with, including parsing nuances in the language.


You don't have that. When you find yourself in a potential conflict or misunderstanding with people who don't speak any language you know, resolving that conflict is going to be extremely difficult.... let alone feeling comradely or brotherly towards those whose words and intentions are unknowable to you.


Forcing everyone to learn all of the world's languages is not the answer. There are at least 6,500 languages currently spoken on Earth. Even if we limit it to the relatively common ones, there are 23 languages spoken by about half the world's population.


Most people have enough trouble learning ONE new language, maybe two. There's a reason people who speak 5 or more languages are rare. It is difficult for most people to learn new languages.


The answer seems obvious: everyone learn one language, the SAME language. It can be a second language, in addition to your native one, but it needs to be the one everyone else learns... then communication is far easier, trade and cooperation become much more feasible and violence less likely.


At present, English is the most common second language in the world. That's a good start, but English or something needs to be taught universally as a 2nd language if we expect to ever have even the slightest chance at this "peace and brotherhood across the planet" idea.



The current number of English speakers, both native and second language, is estimated to approach 1 Billion already. 55 nations officially teach English as a second language; English speakers can be found individually in almost any nation in some numbers. Seems like an obvious choice.

Or if you don't like English fine offer an alternative, but SOME single language needs to become the Common Tongue of Earth if we're ever going to get anywhere together as Species Humanity.

A universal language would help some things, and maybe avoid a few misunderstandings, but I don't think it's an impediment to cooperation if you don't have one.

People of goodwill who want to cooperate will overcome any language barrier. Fostering goodwill and a desire to cooperate is far more the key.
 
A universal language would help some things, and maybe avoid a few misunderstandings, but I don't think it's an impediment to cooperation if you don't have one.

People of goodwill who want to cooperate will overcome any language barrier. Fostering goodwill and a desire to cooperate is far more the key.



I don't entirely disagree, but absent the ability to communicate clearly the degree of cooperation that can be achieved is going to be limited.


I'm not talking so much about the diplomatic level, but the personal level, where people from different cultures try to connect and form fellow feeling... a common language would be a major aid.
 
I think most people want what was described in the OP, however I think its naive to think that having one universal language is going to get us there. The reasons for conflict throughout the world are diverse and complex. History tells us that peace & brotherhood is a concept that has rarely if ever existed.

Why is the United States so fractured and violent, despite our honorable attempts at creating a multicultural society, yet a country like Japan is not? Japan has made no attempt at welcoming outsiders unless its for purposes of business and tourism.

The 5 safest places to live have one thing in common, they are not multicultural or diverse:
1Finland - rating: 6.7
2Qatar - 6.61
3UAE - 6.6
4Iceland - 6.5
5Austria - 6.47
Mapped: The world's safest (and least safe) countries

The UK ranks 63rd on the list of safest countries, and the US ranks 73rd, while a country like Saudi Arabia, which still liberally employs capital punishment, has a better safety rating.
 
I think most people want what was described in the OP, however I think its naive to think that having one universal language is going to get us there. The reasons for conflict throughout the world are diverse and complex. History tells us that peace & brotherhood is a concept that has rarely if ever existed.

Why is the United States so fractured and violent, despite our honorable attempts at creating a multicultural society, yet a country like Japan is not? Japan has made no attempt at welcoming outsiders unless its for purposes of business and tourism.

The 5 safest places to live have one thing in common, they are not multicultural or diverse:
1Finland - rating: 6.7
2Qatar - 6.61
3UAE - 6.6
4Iceland - 6.5
5Austria - 6.47
Mapped: The world's safest (and least safe) countries

The UK ranks 63rd on the list of safest countries, and the US ranks 73rd, while a country like Saudi Arabia, which still liberally employs capital punishment, has a better safety rating.

Well if you include the migrant population in those middle eastern countries they are quite diverse, actually outnumbering native born people in those countries. Their methodology makes literally no sense. You have Armenia and Azerbaijan ranking above the UK, two countries constantly on the brink of war and have an active insurgency.
 
Then everyone needs to be able to communicate with each other. Well almost everyone anyway.


Humans mainly interact in three ways: cooperation, trade, or force... and variations thereof.


In only one of these is communication less vitally important... guess which one.


It is difficult enough to engage in trade or cooperation with those whose culture, customs and norms differ dramatically from what you're used to... add in an inability to communicate clearly and the difficulties became almost insurmountable.

Diplomats have first-class translators to help them understand the people they are negotiating with, including parsing nuances in the language.


You don't have that. When you find yourself in a potential conflict or misunderstanding with people who don't speak any language you know, resolving that conflict is going to be extremely difficult.... let alone feeling comradely or brotherly towards those whose words and intentions are unknowable to you.


Forcing everyone to learn all of the world's languages is not the answer. There are at least 6,500 languages currently spoken on Earth. Even if we limit it to the relatively common ones, there are 23 languages spoken by about half the world's population.


Most people have enough trouble learning ONE new language, maybe two. There's a reason people who speak 5 or more languages are rare. It is difficult for most people to learn new languages.


The answer seems obvious: everyone learn one language, the SAME language. It can be a second language, in addition to your native one, but it needs to be the one everyone else learns... then communication is far easier, trade and cooperation become much more feasible and violence less likely.


At present, English is the most common second language in the world. That's a good start, but English or something needs to be taught universally as a 2nd language if we expect to ever have even the slightest chance at this "peace and brotherhood across the planet" idea.



The current number of English speakers, both native and second language, is estimated to approach 1 Billion already. 55 nations officially teach English as a second language; English speakers can be found individually in almost any nation in some numbers. Seems like an obvious choice.

Or if you don't like English fine offer an alternative, but SOME single language needs to become the Common Tongue of Earth if we're ever going to get anywhere together as Species Humanity.

You make lots of good points.

I was taught never try to negotiate in a language you speaks quite well anything less than near perfections will result in misunderstandings.

The three core subjects in Swedish schools are Maths, Swedish and English. And Swedes can get annoyed when traveling if English is not understood in, say, hotels and restaurants. Their own proficiency in English is, among the young at least, pretty good - but less so than that of the Danes and Dutch.
 
Well if you include the migrant population in those middle eastern countries they are quite diverse, actually outnumbering native born people in those countries.

Qatar's list of ethnic groups:
1.Arab 40%
2. Indian 18%
3. Other (Made up of various Asian peoples) 14%
4. Iranian 10%
5. Pakistani 8.5%

90% of residents in Qatar are Sunni Muslim, while 10% are Shi'a.

UAE's ethnic groups:
1. South Asian 50%
2. Arab and Persian 23% combined
3. Emirati 19%
4. Others (Westerners and east Asians) 8%

Religions of the UAE:
Muslim 76%
Other 15%
Christianity 9%
------------------------------
Are these countries really as diverse as you're making them sound?



Their methodology makes literally no sense. You have Armenia and Azerbaijan ranking above the UK, two countries constantly on the brink of war and have an active insurgency.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe
UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph
 
Qatar's list of ethnic groups:
1.Arab 40%
2. Indian 18%
3. Other (Made up of various Asian peoples) 14%
4. Iranian 10%
5. Pakistani 8.5%

90% of residents in Qatar are Sunni Muslim, while 10% are Shi'a.

UAE's ethnic groups:
1. South Asian 50%
2. Arab and Persian 23% combined
3. Emirati 19%
4. Others (Westerners and east Asians) 8%

Religions of the UAE:
Muslim 76%
Other 15%
Christianity 9%
------------------------------
Are these countries really as diverse as you're making them sound?





UK is violent crime capital of Europe
UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

What is your definition of diverse? Do you consider all Muslims the same? The UK is ~85% British, that makes the Gulf states substantially more diverse. Diversity aside the UK also still has much lower crime rates than the US.
 
I think most people want what was described in the OP, however I think its naive to think that having one universal language is going to get us there. The reasons for conflict throughout the world are diverse and complex. History tells us that peace & brotherhood is a concept that has rarely if ever existed.

Why is the United States so fractured and violent, despite our honorable attempts at creating a multicultural society, yet a country like Japan is not? Japan has made no attempt at welcoming outsiders unless its for purposes of business and tourism.

The 5 safest places to live have one thing in common, they are not multicultural or diverse:
1Finland - rating: 6.7
2Qatar - 6.61
3UAE - 6.6
4Iceland - 6.5
5Austria - 6.47
Mapped: The world's safest (and least safe) countries

The UK ranks 63rd on the list of safest countries, and the US ranks 73rd, while a country like Saudi Arabia, which still liberally employs capital punishment, has a better safety rating.



Ok. I'm not saying if we have one universal common language that all the sudden peace will break out everywhere and we'll all join hands kumbaya etc.


Nah.



I'm saying that if you want to foster more peace and more brotherhood and so on that everyone being able to communicate in a common tongue is a good, perhaps even essential starting place.



Frankly I have always been and continue to be highly skeptical that the whole world will ever join as brothers/sisters in peace and blahblahblah. Seems mighty unlikely. However, maybe LESS war and more seeing each other as human beings could be managed... and a common language would help that happen IMO.
 
I don't entirely disagree, but absent the ability to communicate clearly the degree of cooperation that can be achieved is going to be limited.


I'm not talking so much about the diplomatic level, but the personal level, where people from different cultures try to connect and form fellow feeling... a common language would be a major aid.

Sure, it would help. I just don't think it's a major requirement.
 
Ultimately if you're a GUEST in a foreign land you should not expect others to learn your ways. My college has a requirement to master a 2nd language just to graduate, as is the norm at highly ranked schools. It's kind of grueling, but you also learn to appreciate the culture and the intricacies behind the language

Language changes, take a linguistic course, or just reference all the dispute over your favorite holy book's original meanings and you'll see...it's not just the original meanings but the translations over time. Someone who lives long enough can witness his own native language change greatly.

Regional variation is great as well. I mean, do we force everyone to learn *southern* english, or british english or what? Do we force americans to learn "chinese" since it's actually the most spoken language with the fastest growing economy? I bet you would object to this. But again, there's traditional/formal chinese, there's mandarin, wu, yin - all with tens of millions of speakers and quite a lot of difference. So which becomes universal indeed

Then there is the fact that ethnic groups evolve differently due to climate and such, and then there are speech impediments. It's pretty much impossible for certain people to 'roll the R' or make the click sounds of east africa, and i'd bet it's impossible for some to ever learn to physically make english sounds in a way that's intelligible. And finally, language acquisition is considered a measure of intelligence. If you can't acquire a 2nd language yourself and admit the difficulties, it's utterly unfair to expect everyone else to learn english on your behalf. In fact, english is regarded as one of the more difficult to learn
 
Sure, it would help. I just don't think it's a major requirement.



Ok. Hypothetical...


You're an engineer. Shimoneroni Jebukiuki is also an engineer. You are given the project to build a Moshenator, which will require expertise in both your specialties.

Shimoneroni Jebukiuki speaks only Northern Mesophilian, which you not only don't speak but have never heard of. Nor does anyone else in the company except one guy and he's on a trip to Bermferked Quijipt for the next six weeks.


So... how you gonna build that thing?
 
Ok. I'm not saying if we have one universal common language that all the sudden peace will break out everywhere and we'll all join hands kumbaya etc.


Nah.



I'm saying that if you want to foster more peace and more brotherhood and so on that everyone being able to communicate in a common tongue is a good, perhaps even essential starting place.



Frankly I have always been and continue to be highly skeptical that the whole world will ever join as brothers/sisters in peace and blahblahblah. Seems mighty unlikely. However, maybe LESS war and more seeing each other as human beings could be managed... and a common language would help that happen IMO.

There's been civil wars with very similar language, as you know. North and South Korea in particular loath each other. As well, there's been a crazy number of languages spoken within a single country or allied force that managed to band together. Look at world war 2 alliances (german and japanese and italian, english and russian). Geo-political barriers, ideology, and economic interests have more to do with such conflict i suspect.

Yes, at times 'the other' gets dehumanized to the point of oppression, and language is a huge part of being different. Would we ever build a wall around canada? Mexico, being a foreign language is easier to vilify, but that's only part of it. They also just *look* more different than canadians. But i believe that's about the extent of the damage that can be done, in modern times. No one will risk war due to language barrier. The higher ups have plenty translators also
 
Ultimately if you're a GUEST in a foreign land you should not expect others to learn your ways. My college has a requirement to master a 2nd language just to graduate, as is the norm at highly ranked schools. It's kind of grueling, but you also learn to appreciate the culture and the intricacies behind the language

Language changes, take a linguistic course, or just reference all the dispute over your favorite holy book's original meanings and you'll see...it's not just the original meanings but the translations over time. Someone who lives long enough can witness his own native language change greatly.

Regional variation is great as well. I mean, do we force everyone to learn *southern* english, or british english or what? Do we force americans to learn "chinese" since it's actually the most spoken language with the fastest growing economy? I bet you would object to this. But again, there's traditional/formal chinese, there's mandarin, wu, yin - all with tens of millions of speakers and quite a lot of difference. So which becomes universal indeed

Then there is the fact that ethnic groups evolve differently due to climate and such, and then there are speech impediments. It's pretty much impossible for certain people to 'roll the R' or make the click sounds of east africa, and i'd bet it's impossible for some to ever learn to physically make english sounds in a way that's intelligible. And finally, language acquisition is considered a measure of intelligence. If you can't acquire a 2nd language yourself and admit the difficulties, it's utterly unfair to expect everyone else to learn english on your behalf. In fact, english is regarded as one of the more difficult to learn



Ok. You're fine with not being able to communicate with well over half of humanity, then.


If you speak English and the most common version of Chinese, you can communicate with almost two billion people. Lovely.

That only leave another five billion who have no idea what you're saying and no good way to communicate vital information to you.
 
Ok. Hypothetical...


You're an engineer. Shimoneroni Jebukiuki is also an engineer. You are given the project to build a Moshenator, which will require expertise in both your specialties.

Shimoneroni Jebukiuki speaks only Northern Mesophilian, which you not only don't speak but have never heard of. Nor does anyone else in the company except one guy and he's on a trip to Bermferked Quijipt for the next six weeks.


So... how you gonna build that thing?

That's a situation in which it would help. But engineers have a common language: math.
 
That's a situation in which it would help. But engineers have a common language: math.



True, but math as a mode of communication is a very narrow conduit for information.
 
Ok. You're fine with not being able to communicate with well over half of humanity, then.


If you speak English and the most common version of Chinese, you can communicate with almost two billion people. Lovely.

That only leave another five billion who have no idea what you're saying and no good way to communicate vital information to you.

learn C++ and you won't need to learn mandarin

see, i accept that not everything has to be about what i want, and i'm willing to make some effort to understand others, if need be. That kind of effort is the real sign of brotherhood

but even if i'm tempted to be selfish, i also accept that, even if he can learn to make english sounds, i will likely never stumble across an east african i need to communicate with. The vast majority of those 5 billion the same can be said. Most communication is nonverbal anyway

just like i'm not fluent in bird language, nor will that likely be of consequence
 
Last edited:
What is your definition of diverse?

Well a country like Qatar, where 9 out of 10 people are Sunni Muslim, is not really diverse. Furthermore, consider that Qatar doesn't allow their guest workers to become citizens.
Even though Qatari law allows naturalization of foreigners, Qatar rarely grants them citizenship even if they have a Qatari mother.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_nationality_law

I strayed from your question there, but I wanted to add that to our previous discussion.

I'd consider California to be one example of a truly diverse place. If you ever visit Berkeley, you can find Ethiopian restaurants next to Chinese businesses, that are located in a shopping center that is owned by a middle eastern company.




Do you consider all Muslims the same?

No.


The UK is ~85% British, that makes the Gulf states substantially more diverse.

Crime isn't punished in the UK the same way it is in the gulf states, meaning that individuals with criminal intentions are free to offend several times, whereas a criminal in one of the gulf states isn't going to have that luxury.

Diversity aside the UK also still has much lower crime rates than the US.

Yes, that is why the UK ranks 63rd while the US ranks 73rd.
 
True, but math as a mode of communication is a very narrow conduit for information.

Nope, Pomerance explains how you could communicate with ET using only primes and image:


" Create a rectangle.
Divide it into units, such that each side has the length of a certain prime number.
Encode images into the rectangular grid by making each square black or white (or a dot or a dash).
Take apart the image row-by-row or column-by-column and make it into one long pattern.
Transmit the message."

Eventually you'd get as efficient as typing words, because you'd memorize what to draw
 
In other words you want to destroy all human cultures but a single one in order to instigate your little totalitarian internationalist project. And of course since people will disagree you will have to enforce it upon them with bullets to create peace.

No, thanks, I prefer sovereign nations: my country, my culture, your country, your culture. Tourists welcome, immigrants not so much. It is stable, democratic, it works, and it makes mankind more diverse, richer and interesting.
 
1. I can't even understand the English of many Americans.
2. A universal language will not achieve world peace. I point to civil wars as evidence.
3. English is a much more difficult language than many others. I consider Spanish the simplest language.
 
2. A universal language will not achieve world peace. I point to civil wars as evidence.
Indeed, the author's premise that conflicts come from communication difficulties is extremely naive.

Modern theories of conflicts emphasize the role of social identities as the most common cause of conflicts. At most language is one of the many identity factors, but there is also religion, skin color, geography, nationality, culture, ...

The best way to reduce conflicts is to account for human nature and minimize conflicting interactions. Partitioning people into homogeneous nations is the surest way to achieve this, along with well designed mechanisms for international relationships, especially trade.

Forcing people to live together and attempting to destroy our nations, cultures and sovereignties will only cause a century of blood baths. Immigration and the EU are highways to hell.
 
Last edited:
While it would be a good first step toward uniting humanity, this sets up a precedent for an oppressive global body thereafter enforcing a world religion, a world political system and world ideology. I think first and foremost we should reject the divide-and-conquer agenda set about by world leaders and learn to appreciate one another's diversity, that way we can become more comfortable with exchanging customs and languages, and building one another up through the lens of diversity - utilizing it as a strength toward unity as opposed to a weakness.
 
Back
Top Bottom