World's deviation

CultureI disagree with you in this topic. You stated that language isn't that much related to culture but actually language is one of the main items of cultural identity. The Cambridge dictionary defines culture as "the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time". Languages, as you can empirically prove, are a critical part of someone's way of life. So language is culture.That being said, I don't believe that chauvinism is the reason why culture is important. Culture protection and logical thinking can coexist. But if you take away culture from the people, they will no longer have an identity. Culture is one of the things that makes us humans and not animals. A reduced version of my argument against your statement:Languages is a main part of cultureErgo, without language there's no culture. Culture makes us humansErgo, without culture we are not humansConclusion: taking away language is taking away humannes obviously we don't want that!!!Also, putting in practice what you proposed would be pretty impossible. Firstly, not all people would have the possibility of learning that global language, thus you will segregate a part of the population. Moreover, as you can observe if you read the history of humans' languages, It's normal that in a big territory with only one language, different dialects appear. For instance, in Spain there are people talking Spanish, but also Català and Galego. Provided that the globe is way bigger than Spain or any other territory where dialects have appeared, there will be dialects originating from this "global language". Thus, there would be no global language, but plenty of different languages, just like now.Language We use language to think and we can't think without language. Then, the one who controls our language controls our thinking indirectly. This is another reason why a unique language isn't appealing.I understand your example of the cats, but I don't agree. In that case, the reduced language would be useful, I accept that. But that example is way too basic. For instance, lets take 2 different dogs breads (just to keep the thing in the animals plane hahaha): Irish terrier and Lakeland terrier. They are similar dogs but they are also quite different. If you had to name this dog with a reduced language it would be something like: the bearded dog with less hair in the body and the bearded dog with more hair in the body. As you can see this would be very unpractical, although those names would have to be even larger in order to precisely identify them between all the breads. If this is unpractical with dogs, you can imagine how unpractical it would be with more complex things. Art You accept that art demands a complex language, but then you say without it, art would find a way of expressing. However the only thing that we can prove of those two is the first one, You can't prove that art will find a way.I agree that our antecesors play a significant role on what we believe. Nevertheless, I believe this isn't something avoidable. When we perceive things we are comparing them with what we already experienced in order to classify that new thing. This means that all our perceptions are influenced by our previous experiences. Then, we can't think in an objective way. We will always be influenced by our cultural programming and our previous experiences. That being said, what you say as horrible isn't that bad, even your opinions about language and culture are biased. Looking forward to read your other ideas about religion, agnosticism and so on...