tpopton (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

:o)

Michjo001 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

1) Most Esperantists agree. And neither will an education or clean water - yet they're worthwhile. So is Esperanto.2) 2 million and growing already speak it; they've proven it works by using it. The more that speak it, the more that benefit.3) International languages tend towards simple and uniform. Esperanto started out that way; 120 years of international use have kept it so.4) Esperanto was created artificial, but became a living language through daily use in all facets of life.

outspiral (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

damn there's a lot of people arguing in the comments of this youtube video. I guess you don't really get what Carl was trying to tell us at all do you?

pupeno2 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

1) No, it will just solve the communication problem.2) You don't need everyone to speak Esperanto, only a lot.3) Languages used to change a lot when communication was hard and people from one town or country never spoke with people from other towns or countries (like Swiss German vs High German), but even a few centuries ago, they stopped changing so much (most Latin-America speak the same Spanish).4) That's bullshit, most Esperanto speakers are not linguistics.

visceralgristle (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

1) Esperanto isn't gonna solve the world's problems.2) you'll never get EVERYONE to speak Esperanto, so what's the point? 3) Languages are like a fluid and will always change over time. They are not static. It's fantasy to think that even if you could get everyone to speak the same language that it won't over time become different languages altogether. 4) Artificial languages don't tend to do well with anyone but linguists (and Star Trek nerds).

baphomet257 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Carl was, technically, a pantheist. Pantheists are people who view the universe and its laws as synonymous with God. God is not some capricious being, some judgmental entity dispensing rewards and punishment. To the pantheist God is the order and regulation of the world - nothing more, nothing less. Would you have God look like you and subject to human fallibility? Or would you have God being arbitrarily fair and understandable - the fact that chaos succumbs to order? Pantheism.

pupeno2 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

It's not going to happen thanks to you, that's for sure. Thankfully, not everybody is like you and you don't know what's happening out there.

visceralgristle (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Nope. Carl was agnostic and he distanced himself from the term atheist. His widow Ann Druyan has talked about this quite a bit.If you go to the nyas (New York Academhy of Science) website ,and look up the Science and the City podcast... look up the podcast interview with Ann Druyan and Neil Degrasse Tyson, they talk about this in some detail, among other things.

caliaa (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Wrong. He was an atheist AND an agnostic. Just like most scientists.

caliaa (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

That is crap. You can be an atheist and also an agnostic or a gnostic; and you can be a theist and an agnostic or a gnostic. You're treating two different concepts as if they were mutually exclusive, they're not.