Here is an interesting video about language and evolution. By the end of the video, it begs for a one-world language.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/mark_pagel_how_...

Interesting topic. Not certain I agree with every point in the video; however, I think that he was using multiple simplifications for the benefit of his audience.

I suppose you have posted this as an argument for E-o? However, while he seems to be saying that a single language is inevitable, he gives the impression that said universal language would be English. That said, I think E-o can do better as a truly neutral language.

Yes, the way he speaks is very simplistic and with a kind of Canadian accent. It is a very straight forward and rudimentary presentation. I found myself saying "already!" while he spoke.

Nevertheless, I like some of his arguments about communality and social-learning versus "kith-and-kin" reality, or staying only in small families where ideas would be limited and limit evolution as an argument for a global language.

The internet already is promoting a kind of hyper-social learning.

As a volunteer English tutor, I cant say that English seems like the best language. It has many irregular verbs and other difficulties. I have a student who has been in the USA for 10 years without leaving and still has trouble writing and comprehending the difference between "t" and "d", for instance confusing "those" and "does" phonetically. The irregular verbs are so archaic to a non-native speaker.

Either English should be simplified and altered, or some other language used.

komenstanto:Either English should be simplified and altered ...

It will never happen. Yes, my native language is obtuse and complicated; nonetheless, it is still mine. Any attempt to "improve" it will be met with heavy resistance. Any attempt to "improve" it by an outside body will be met with heavy resentment.

So, yes, I agree that another language should be used. Esperanto, anyone?