General Options Select Language:
Login Username:
Password:

Oftaj Demandoj pri Monda Helpa Lingvo (OD)

Click here to view the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page as a PDF file (better for printing or viewing off-line).



  1. Condensed Table of Contents

  2. Extended Table of Contents




Condensed Table of Contents

  1. Basic Questions        1
  2. Benefits and Costs        2
  3. Questions on Existence of an International Language        3
  4. Foreseeable Problems and Objections        4
  5. Other Questions        5





Extended Table of Contents

  1. Basic Questions (see also section on Debate about the Form a World Language Should Take)

    1. What is the Situation?
    2. What is the Solution?

  2. Benefits and Costs

    1. Benefits of an International Language (and Benefits of this Method of Spreading the Idea)

      1. Summary of Benefits
      2. Elaboration on Benefits of Avoiding Translation and Language Learning/Teaching
      3. Elaboration on Benefits to Peace and Democratic Ideals by Avoiding Intermediaries
      4. Who would Benefit from this Decision?
        1. Everyone
        2. The Poor
        3. Those Perceiving a Lack of Integration on the Part of Immigrants
        4. Those Concerned for Immigrants (See also Children and Parents section)
        1. Post-Adolescent Language Learners
        2. Children and Parents
        3. Schools (See also the Children and Parents section)
        1. Institutions
          1. International, Regional, and National Institutions
          2. Scientists
          3. Artists
          4. Supporters of Creeds/Philosophies/Movements/Religions/Inventions/etc. Who Wish to be Able to Explain, Justify, or Share their Beliefs with Others
      1. Emotional/Artistic Appeal (see also section on Objection to Any Greater Ability to Communicate with Others as WAL may Bring)
      1. Benefits of this Campaign’s Specific Methods
      2. Difficulty in expecting all individuals to spontaneously either agree to learn a dominant market language like English or in learning an invented language intended to become a universal language such as Esperanto

    1. (Potential) Costs and Concerns

      1. Loss of Jobs in Some Sectors/Relocation of Workers
        1. Due to Less Need for Language Professions
        2. Due to Increased Immigration (and “Brain Drain”)
      2. Added Burdens for Language Minority Groups
      3. Loss of Local (and Even National) Languages (see Diversity section)
      4. Added Burdens to Schools...
        1. ...in Countries where the Current Dominant Lingua Franca is Taught as a Second Language (if the Universal Language Chosen was not the Same as this Dominant Language)
        2. ...in Countries where the Dominant Lingua Franca is Already the Native Language (e.g., English is the Native Language) (and a Different Language is Chosen for the Universal Language)
      5. The Possibility that the Language Choice Would not be the one Hoped for (Whether for Users of Dominant Languages such as English or Users of an Invented Language such as Esperanto) (see also Objections and Admitted Partisans)
      1. Difficulty in Changing the Language Later if the International Community is not Currently Sufficiently Prepared to Make an Ideal Choice (see Difficulty to Change the Language Later if Needed section)
      1. Exposure to Unpleasant Ideas by Greater Access to Others (see Objections section)

  1. Questions on Existence of an International Language

    1. Don’t We Already Have an International Language? (English)
    2. If There isn’t an International Language Now, Why isn’t One Already Existing? (see also Why Hasn’t the United Nations Worked on This? )
    3. Wasn’t a Universal Language Already Tried and It Failed?
    4. If This Idea is so Great, Why Hasn't it Caught On?
    5. Why Hasn’t the United Nations Worked on This?
    6. Hasn’t Anyone Already Researched This?

  2. Foreseeable Problems and Objections (see also (Potential) Costs)

    1. Perceptions of it being Utopian or too Difficult to Achieve

      1. Isn't this just a Utopian Dream?
      2. Although it May Sound like a Good Feasible idea, There Needs to Be a Credible Plan that can Bring it About--Without Expecting the Impossible.
      3. Isn’t it Too Much to Expect People to Learn a New Language?
      4. Wouldn’t a Language Need to First Be or Become Dominant in Order to Be Made Official?
      5. Every Great Change Happens Based on a Need; Won’t This Only Succeed When People Come to the Point of Wanting to Solve this Problem on their Own Initiative?
      6. All Languages Developed Over a Long Period of Time; the Same Will Be True for This Future Language.
      7. Isn’t Language Policy Ineffective in Changing Language Behavior?
      8. Language Would Change or Take on Local Varieties Preventing Mutual Comprehension Despite Language Policy.
      9. Perceived Impossibility in Coming to Agreement On and Implementing a Global Policy on Language (Given Entrenched Group Conflicts)?
      10. Doesn’t this Need to Be a Grass-Roots Change (i.e., Think Globally but Act Locally)?
      11. Wouldn’t Such an Agreement Only Be Possible with a Massive Universal Support of the World’s People?
      12. How Can Those in Terrible Poverty Gain Access to a World-Standard Language?

    2. Would our Efforts be Fruitless if an Agreement is not Immediately Made?

    1. Debate about the Form a World Language Should Take

      1. What Suggestions Exist?
      2. Factors that Might be Considered in the Choosing of a World Language
      3. Which Form Should the Language Take?
      4. Admitted Partisans
        1. Partisans Who Advocate a Particular Language Associated with an Existing Culture
        2. Those Familiar with English not Willing to Risk the Chance that English is not Chosen
        3. Partisans of Esperanto (or Other Invented Languages)
      5. Advantages to All of Leaving the Choice of the World Auxiliary Language to a Globally Representative Body

    2. Difficulty to Change the Language Later if Needed

    3. Objections

      1. Religious Objections
        1. Doesn't the Bible (or Qur'án) Warn Against a World Language (Babel)?
          1. Pride was the Cause of the Punishment, not the Possession of a Common Language itself
          2. The Common Language was a Pre-Existing Condition
          3. The Common Language was not Objected to by God
          4. God Could Stop It
          5. Unwisdom of Attempting Intervention Based on Prophecies
          6. God May Welcome It
        2. Excerpts from Holy Scriptures Regarding Babel (where Languages are to Have Diverged)
          1. Genesis 11:1-9 New International Version (NIV)
          2. Possible Reference to Babel in the Qur’án
      2. Integration/Diversity Objections
        1. Integration Objections
        2. Diversity Concerns: Language not to be only Language or Required in all Domains
        3. Concerns About Diversity in Representation
        4. Concerns Ultimate Decision Process Would Be Unfair
        5. What if an Existing Language like English is Chosen? What about Diversity then?
        6. Doesn't this Eliminate the Diversity of Language?/Won’t this be Implemented in a Manner to Crush Diversity?
        7. What about a Possible Loss of Diversity Over Time as People May Feel Less Need to Use their Local or even National Language(s)?
          1. Concern that Loss Would be too Rapid (for Future Generations’ Access to the Language or for a Whole Language Becoming Extinct)
          1. Allocating Resources to Ensure Any Loss is not too Rapid
          2. Arbitariness of Language (A Loss not Being Inherently Bad if Translation, Cataloguing of Features, etc. Can Occur)
      1. Objection to Any Greater Ability to Communicate with Others as WAL may Bring
        1. Fears of Being Able to Communicate
        2. Those Who Don’t Want Any Common Language
      1. Objections of Those not Seeing a Need (see also Benefits section)
      1. Do we Even Need an International Language in the Future (Technological Translators to Render this Unnecessary)?

  1. Other Questions






Basic Questions (see also section on Debate about the Form a World Language Should Take)

What is the Situation?

Ever since a language barrier has been present, individuals have been dismayed, saddened, or frustrated to be unable to discover the mysteries held within their fellow global citizens' minds or to reveal their own. This mutual unintelligibility, however disturbing, has perhaps contributed to enabling the evolution of a rich diversity of thought upon which we are now increasingly in the position–and need–of being able to readily draw for our collective advantage. Communication and transportation technologies; military and environmental threats; social, health, and economic crises; and many other developments, have pulled us together, ready or not, willing or unwilling, in our business, government, science, artistic, and religious worlds, and penetrating into our local neighborhoods and families. However, we remain unable to adequately deal with the challenges and possibilities before us due to our lack of a common language.






What is the Solution?

It is now evident that humankind as a whole is in dire need of a common world auxiliary language and script–a language which, whether to be invented or chosen from among the existing languages of the world, would be selected through a globally representative and democratic process, engaging experts in various disciplines (e.g., politics, media, education, linguistics, economics, social sciences, etc.) and leading to a decision binding on all countries. Such a language, once chosen, will be universally required and taught, alongside the country's native language, beginning in primary school, in all the countries of the world and be promoted as a universal medium for communication.

The world is becoming “smaller” and we are clearly interdependent just as a family. Just as a family could not function well without a common language shared by its members, so too is it with our world as a whole.

(Note: the proposed solution calls for both the choice of and instruction in a spoken language as well as in a written script. If only one of these were chosen, the many benefits which could be reaped would be too severely limited. Clearly, both a spoken and written language must be chosen.)




Benefits and Costs

Benefits of an International Language (and Benefits of this Method of Spreading the Idea)

Summary of Benefits

(see also Emotional Appeal below)

The advantages would be vast, ranging from:

  • easing social integration (see also section on Children)
  • eliminating costs, delays, and misunderstsandings associated with translation and language learning/teaching for individuals, organizations, businesses, and governments (see below for more on this)
  • bringing convenience to travellers and emigrants
  • facilitating scientific development and access for poorer peoples to education
  • allowing the sharing of cultural, spiritual, and artistic heritages of various peoples to a world audience
  • promoting peace and understanding through the elimination of suspicions and intermediaries' intervention brought about by our current lack of a common language.

The question we might instead ask is, whether there Is any field of human endeavor which would NOT be benefited by a universal auxiliary language (and is not currently impeded by its absence).

(Some might argue--particularly in the case of an invented language--that the choice of such a language could also eliminate gender bias encoded in a language, that a language could be learned and expressed more efficiently, and there are even claims that such a language could help people think better/faster (though language is generally proven to be much more controlled by thought than the other way around, if the latter is true at all).






Elaboration on Benefits of Avoiding Translation and Language Learning/Teaching

To expand on the second point above as to costs of translation and language learning/teaching, we can see that they are great in the absence of a universal auxiliary language--for translating services, translation machines or software, extra printing costs, hiring of specialized teachers and consultants, etc. The costs are enormous to society and the absence is an impediment to free trade--the free trade of both commerce as well as ideas.

Moreover, translation involves inconvenient time delays and inaccuracies (which take time to resolve--and which can also cause emotional damage and can even be life-threatening).





Elaboration on Benefits to Peace and Democratic Ideals by Avoiding Intermediaries

A universal language could help build the sought after facilitated communication and world unity (through circumventing the intermediaries which deliberately or unconsciously breed distrust among nations or language groups and eliminating natural barriers which conduce to suspiciousness and misunderstandings).

A frequent tool of totalitarian regimes is censoring the ideas of others (and even fabricating their words). This would become much more difficult as access to a common language with the outside world emerges for all their people (and any nations not signing on to such a universal language agreement would nevertheless increasingly be internally pressured to educate their citizens in such a language as they would increasingly feel the need of giving their citizens access to this language for economic development reasons).

However, it would not be confined to such totalitarian regimes, as all peoples, in the absence of a common language, inevitably develop prejudices about those they do not understand (and cannot understand in the absence of a common language).

Just think of nationalistic identity. Language generally even trumps nationality (and even at times race) in terms of identity. How much can or do speakers identify with their ancestry’s native or national culture, for example if they don’t speak their language (and how much do those native speakers identify with those not speaking their language)? This is not to say it is good not to identify with the people of one’s national origin if they have another language (rather, the contrary), but the idea is used here as an example to show that if we had a world language where we could all communicate, how much less would be the excessive attachments to national identity versus a world-embracing one?

Although there are certainly plenty of conflicts between nations and peoples who share the same language (i.e., brothers fighting brothers), it should also be apparent that many of the world’s alliances occur most readily between those sharing a common language. Consider, for example, how more easily it is to identify with the people of another country if one share a language with them. It is most likely that one’s culture already has been influenced and intertwined with such cultures.






Who would Benefit from this Decision?

Everyone

A world auxiliary language would offer benefits (as described above) to all of the inhabitants of the earth. The ability to freely read from, write to, speak to, and listen to any other person we may come across, without requiring any translating intermediary would, in time, be given to all on earth.

This is one very momentous opportunity--one which never existed on such a scale in all of human history.

Access to feelings, ideas, opinions, and information--scientific, historical, artistic, etc. are currently locked away on websites, in books, magazines, television and radio programs (news, entertainment, cultural, educational, etc.), in conference calls, etc. throughout the world. Now that technology makes it possible for large numbers of people to have ready technical access to these sources of information, how can we delay in effecting the political solution which will allow future generations to all have the linguistic access required to make use of such technological breakthroughs?






The Poor

As to the benefits for the poorer members of our global community, economic inequities which continue to exist due to a lack of equal access for all to an economically advantageous language (and those in such a position are also more likely to be living with less access to other resources and opportunities) would be more leveled by the choice of a universal auxiliary language (particularly since such linguistic access would enhance their ability to take advantage of the technological resources now available for distance education, etc.).

All would have the opportunity from the time of childhood (when it is much easier to learn) of learning a more global language and could benefit from such direct access to the economic, scientific, and other resources which would already be (or would become) encoded within such a language.

It may be argued that an invented language may create a more level playing field (since all nations would not have the advantage of already knowing it), and if it were easy to learn, the poor could particularly gain ready access. However, it might also be argued that the choice of an existing languages would at least allow those poor speaking the langauge to get a head start (and that others could catch up eventually)--particularly if one was chosen which included large masses of people (including the world’s poor) such as Chinese or Hindi.

Even non-natives may prefer an existing language other than their own, given that their country may already have in place the mechanisms for educating in that language.

In any case, these factors are all considerations which the representative global body will certainly need to take into consideration. But whatever language or kind of language is finally chosen, the choice would lead to the leveling of the playing field for the poor by giving greater access to all to an economically advantageous language.




Those Perceiving a Lack of Integration on the Part of Immigrants

Many peoples--particularly in economically “developed” countries--grumble about the perceived failures of immigrants to learn the language of the country to which they emigrate. Although this perception is often ill-founded, yet there is indeed a grain of truth in the importance of all citizens learning to speak a common language for social cohesion.

However, since the choice would be a global democratic decision (and not merely one on a limited national scale), the language chosen would “belong” to all the world’s people. Natives would be challenged to make their own accommodations by learning the global language (particularly if the language were invented)--thus showing good will to the immigrants also faced with learning such a language.

But the result would be, whatever the choice fo the language, a common language for society’s members.






Those Concerned for Immigrants (See also Children and Parents section)

Immigrants often face the stressful experience of not only having to adapt to a vastly different culture, but also to struggle to learn a new language--either past their prime age of language learning, or when they are children faced with the demands of acquiring large amounts of knowledge. Moreover, in addition to the struggle of continuing to learn the language (most likely along with carrying on a job whose difficulty may be compounded by the fact that they don’t have proficiency in the language needed for the job), they must also face the difficulties in day to day living such as in seeing a doctor, going shopping, meeting neighbors, etc.






Post-Adolescent Language Learners

College students and older adults must both currently strain themselves to learn the market language(s) of the day (including especially those in poorer countries without ready access to the market languages who must spend valuable time, money, and effort in gaining such access).

A universal auxiliary language to be taught in all the schools of the world would ensure that future generations of students will not be unnecessarily forced to inherit the awkward necessity of learning a new language once they have passed the prime age at which language acquisition is fully automatic--sometime in adolescence or pre-adolescence.






Children and Parents

The problem of not having such a universal language is already acutely felt in schools throughout the world as immigrant students and parents are left in the dust, not able to learn the native language (such as English) quickly enough, especially at the pace required in modern society where the necessity for literacy in work is much greater than it used to be.

A univeral auxiliary language would ensure that future generations of students will not be unnecessarily forced to adapt to an unduly challenging social setting in which they are unable to understand or communicate even basic needs for a time, and in which their parents are likely to be hampered in their ability to fully assist their children academically or socially.

Also, there are burdens placed on mainstream students by immigration in the absence of such a universal language--however necessary accommodating immigrants is. Resources are diverted from their education, not only financial resources, but also the human resources of the mainstream teachers who must seek to accommodate the immigrant students. This is not like Special Education students (though they should also be accommodated) in that there is less of an opportunity to prevent Special Education needs from existing, whereas were a universal language chosen, the whole need for immigrants to take separate second language instruction classes or separate bilingual instruction (at least in all subjects) would eventually fade away.






Schools (See also the Children and Parents section)

The school system as a whole is increasingly faced with expending its resources of time, money, and attention to accommodate an ever-growing linguistic diversity. The contributions that immigrants (and native language minority students) make (and receive) often greatly outweigh the sacrifices, but it would hardly be a sacrifice in the future, if the nations of the world agreed upon a universal auxiliary language so that future generations of emigrants would not face the same degree of challenge in moving to a different setting (nor would those institutions admirably receiving them).

It would also become easier for schools to find teachers, since they would not need to find qualified bilingual teachers knowing different languages--as the only bilingual teacher they would eventually need would be one proficient in the universal language who could teacher immigrants the country’s native language--and since all would be learning the universal language, such qualified teachers should not be hard to find.






Institutions

A large number of diplomatic, business, cultural, scientific, and other institutions must focus enormous resources of time, money, and effort to render, often imperfectly with negative repercussions, translations for their benefactors. A universal auxiliary language would render this unnecessary.






International, Regional, and National Institutions

Our national, regional, and international institutions are also engaged in a great deal of translation--whether the institutions are responsible for policing, diplomacy, trade, etc.. Such translation would eventually be rendered unnecessary as people come to accept and use the instituted universal auxiliary language.

A lingua franca for various regional and intenrational fora is strongly needed. The United Nations, for example is significantly burdened by costs of translating text and dialogue as well as by the prospect of having to translate into even more than its current six official languages (as other countries also press for this privilege). Their choosing an official language--through representative means--would render this unnecessary.

Such an international forum could even set a great precedent toward the eventual adoption of such a universal auxiliary language by the nations of the world by doing research for establishing a tentative universal language for its own fora.

These costs faced by international, regional, and national institutions ultimately come at a cost to taxpayers, as these translation resources could instead be used for other more productive purposes were such an official language chosen.






Scientists

Scientists, whether in the technical or social science fields, would greatly benefit by having immediate access to the knowledge and wisdom of all the world’s inhabitants. They would also benefit by being able to share their own insights to a wider audience.






Artists

Although artists would continue to be able to express their arts in their native language, they would also have access to a wider audience by using the international language (an audience much larger than could be gained by learning one or even several other non-official foreign languages).

Of course, artists would also be able to derive inspiration for their arts by having greater access to the thoughts and culture of their fellow world citizens.






Supporters of Creeds/Philosophies/Movements/Religions/Inventions/etc. Who Wish to be Able to Explain, Justify, or Share their Beliefs with Others

If you really have a good idea, it would sure be easier to diffuse, if your words could be understood by the widest possible audience. Otherwise your words may not be understood in the absence of translators (who may come at a cost), and even then, you wouldn’t be sure the full idea was being properly translated.



Emotional/Artistic Appeal (see also section on Objection to Any Greater Ability to Communicate with Others as WAL may Bring)

Although virtually all of the arguments could be considered supportable by emotion, there are certain arguments which in particular may touch an affective chord.

How I wish I could speak to your heart!

If we believe that the world is a family and should become a more united family, how could we bear not being able to understand our own dear family members and benefit from their insights and not being able to share insights which could benefit them? Just as racial equality, the equality of women with men, elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty, and universal education will ensure the greater availability of vast creative and productive resources to the world, so too will such a vast opportunity for the free trade of ideas, information, feelings, artistic expression, and beliefs such as a universal language would bring.

Innumerable songs and poems express (deliberately or coincidentally) the need for a common language. Just to take a few examples of the use of this virtually ubiquitous sentiment, Mike and the Mechanics in referring to family communication say "We all talk a different language, talking in defense..." The Moody Blues express the emotion, "How can I tell you all the things inside my head?" Hothouse Flowers say "What in the world caused this distance? And what in the world hurt our hearts? And what are we to do about it? And what are we to start? We have an answer and it is language, it might be silence, it might be words. And it includes some understanding, and it includes the will to learn to be talking, talking, talking one tongue...as it gets more complicated, simplicity must arise..." All of these must certainly apply also to the desire to express ourselves to the family of humankind of which we are all a part.

Although it is difficult enough to be able to express thoughts and feelings using our own native language (though it is obviously our goal), not being able to communicate and share joys, delights, sorrows, and aspirations at all with those of different linguistic backgrounds should surely be even more distressing to those who lay claim to a universal love.

Even (or perhaps especially) CHILDREN are capable of grasping the absolute logic and necessity for such a decision and for effort being taken towards its achievement.

Perhaps the greatest benefit for a world language is not the knowledge we know it would bring, but rather the knowledge, insights, and understanding which we do not know.

Indeed what contributions may be missing to our discussions and thoughts of reality (whether in our media reports, literature, etc.) How little, for example, do the East and West understand each other--and how much could they each benefit from a better understanding.

One further emotional appeal (pertaining to this specific campaign) relates to the aesthetic quality of using the medium of language to itself bring about the desired world language (by passing on the idea through language). That it is to be a universal language should also be confirmed by a universal participation in its establishment. Also, the method of democratic participation and use of friendly persuasion in spreading the idea should also augur well for the hopes of the language to itself foster peace and understanding.




Benefits of this Campaign’s Specific Methods

Difficulty in expecting all individuals to spontaneously either agree to learn a dominant market language like English or in learning an invented language intended to become a universal language such as Esperanto

Just like it is too much to ask for one country to disarm itself while others have not, it is difficult to expect some individuals to commit to learning a potential candidate for a universal language such as Esperanto, when it has not been chosen as an official language. The important thing then is not to work for piecemeal treaties and protocols, but to work for a comprehensive "disarmament" or in this case, universal linguistic disarmament (i.e., making an official global decision). Of course these examples are not the same, and there are currently merits for learning languages such as Esperanto (including advancing the idea we are here proposing (albeit with an invented language focus).

However, we have to get to the point where the forces supporting an international language are not merely either due solely to market forces (which is clearly insufficient (at least alone) to universally consolidate itself) or solely to individual initiative (as in expecting everyone to take the great effort to learn Esperanto on their own in the vague hope that it MAY become an international language, but rather where the forces include global political consolidation of a particular language (as various nations have demonstrated their success in consolidating a local language as the official national language).

In order to get to this point, we must spread the idea (and studying languages is not necessary for all to do in order to take part in spreading the idea) and build public momentum to urge our leaders to take the steps to meet with other world leaders in making such a decision--based on the advice of eminent scholars in various disciplines.

Also, this method should help us get to such a decision as quickly as possible. This is particularly necessary, not only that we should partake of the benefits described here, but also given that as we allow time to go by, there is more information accumulating which we may later need to translate, thus adding to our difficulties if another language is chosen than the one we are currently using. Also, the longer we wait, the more resources we waste in language learning, instead of other more productive purposes.




(Potential) Costs and Concerns

Loss of Jobs in Some Sectors/Relocation of Workers

Due to Less Need for Language Professions

Some who are in the language profession--translation, language teaching, etc.--might fear that their livelihood would be in jeopardy

The important thing to consider is that while their professions may in the long run be jeopardized (though the purpose of their important professions would be advanced by eliminating their need), the implementation of such a universal language program would likely occur over such an extended period that those currently in the profession would not need to fear losing their livelihood (and future generations would be alerted ahead of time to the need to adjust their careers if necessary).

It should also be pointed out that though the need for instruction in and translation into other foreign languages (besides the chosen universal language) will indeed drop (which is a good thing for the society as resources are freed up for other purposes), there will inevitably still remain some need for these professions, as people will still in some cases want to gain access to the languages surely to continue to be used in intimate day-to-day situations (if not in trade, scientific articles, etc.) of people in other countries (or of language minorities within their country). Moreover, if a language is chosen other than a current dominant lingua franca (e.g., English), then translation and language instruction would certainly need to continue for a time in the dominant lingua franca as well (if it is different than the native language).

However, despite all these possibilities for additional language study, the NEED to learn additional languages would eventually be eliminated.

In the unlikely event that jobs would be lost, the respective governments (perhaps aided by the international community) could even conceivably compensate or retrain those losing such jobs. The potential economic benefits to the respective countries should overcome any unwillingness to compensate such individuals.

However, again, it is highly doubtful that any implementation would occur which would not give time for prospective teachers, translatorrs, etc., to change their professional choices if deemed necessary (older teachers, translators, etc., would in all likelihood not see the language take firm root (whether in implementation in schools or in the likely more distant future when the language would be viable for mass use) in their time if the choice will be an invented language, nor would the issue change their situation much in many cases if the universal language were to be an already dominant language such as English).

It is the elimination of the intermediary role which is desired, not the elimination of the welfare of the current intermediary people.


Due to Increased Immigration (and “Brain Drain”)


Workers in economically strong countries may be concerned that as a result of more people abroad having a greater ability to acqiure proficiency in a language of use domestically, more immigrants may enter their country and compete with their own jobs. Likewise those in economically weaker countries may be concerned that they would see an outflow of their most qualified workers to the richer countries (i.e., “brain drain”).

It should be pointed out that even if this did cause a nation to increase its immigration, opportunities for emigration would also be greater.

In addition to the fact that increased competition is ultimately a good thing, as is the mixing of peoples with their various cultures, knowledge, and heritage, measures could and indeed should be taken to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated by the international community to prevent great imbalances in the international flow of human resources (e.g., by adding financial incentives for workers to stay in or emigrate to poorer countries).







Added Burdens for Language Minority Groups

For cultures where instruction in both a local and national language is desired, then the adoption of a uinversal auxiliary language may admittedly add an added burden of needing to learn yet another language.

However, some language minorities could conceivably either be phased out of instruction in their native language, or, if preservation of the local language is upheld as a priority, the learning of the national language could be abandoned as more venues (such as in voting, etc.) increasingly used the international language. If it were actually deemed necessary to continue language in all three languages, then this could be done in order to give the language minority access to their own community’s heritage, that of the nation of which they are a part, and to that of the global community of which they are also a part.






Loss of Local (and Even National) Languages (see Diversity section)

Just as the existence of official (or effectively official) national languages can encourage the eventual loss of local languages (though this does not occur overly swiftly where proper attitudes and methodology are used), so too will it be likely for the official international language.

However, this need not (and should not) be implemented in a manner where extinction occurs so rapidly that the transmission of its culture has no time to be incorporated into the international language (and before linguists have a chance to catalogue its features). This could indeed be a loss, as generations find themselves unable to pass on their cherished values, wisdom, and innovations to the next generations. However, if the program is implemented such that native languages are respected, this extinction should not occur prematurely (if at all). The whole concept of allowing the choice of an international language to be globally democratic should reinforce this respect for speakers of minority languages, particularly perhaps if a culturally neutral language such as Esperanto were to be chosen, in that all would approach the international language on an equal basis with a say in its choice (as opposed to national situations where language minorities may have had no say in the choice of their nation’s national language nor had the legitimacy of their language acknowledged by such processes).

Of course this idea does nothing to prevent anyone from preserving their language, but it is admitted that the forces at play (with or without an international language) tend to lead eventually to the loss of certain languages.

It should be pointed out that although the evolution of a language over time allows it to embody culture, cultures are always changing (as are languages), so preserving them indefinitely has no real intrinsic value. Such languages can show linguists what is possible with language (though it may eventually be possible to ascertain this more accurately through other means)--but the languages need not be living in order to do that (as long as there was sufficient time to catalogue its features). A language can also show the values historically embodied in its users’ culture, but again the language need not be living in order to do that) except to the extent that sufficient time is allowed for cataloguing its features.






Added Burdens to Schools...

...in Countries where the Current Dominant Lingua Franca is Taught as a Second Language (if the Universal Language Chosen was not the Same as this Dominant Language)

Some added complexity would temporarily occur in nations seeking to educate children in a new world language while still wishing to further educate their populace at least for a time in the already existing dominant lingua franca or lingua francas.

In any case, the need for more than one auxiliary language (if there is such a need at all) would eventually be phased out (assuming the ag