Minute vs. Minute: Should words have multiple meanings?

What would the world be like if everyone spoke the same language? If no one spoke at all?

In a world where communication is so vital to quality of life, it is easy to say that words should have just one meaning.  It would fix aesthetic and logistical problems, and ultimately save time. However, language is not just a tool for communication, it is cultural and has it's own identity.  If each word had only one meaning, a language would loose it's individuality and uniqueness, resulting in a much less interesting world. 

Having lived in Germany for 3 years, I would like to tell people I speak German, but unfortunately I have forgotten most of it.  One word I do remember was oberflächlich, which is loosely described in English as awkward or superficial.  It is an example of a word that gives the language it's own identity and makes it special.  There is no word in English that matches with oberflächlich.  For some people, the unique structures and elements of individual languages alone might lead them to become a linguist. It would likely be a very boring world with less incentive for travel or learning. Although it is necessary to have a 'language of the world' (which is English), it should never replace the other languages.   

If no one spoke at all, the world would likely look like George Orwell's 1984.  So much of human expression and communication is reliant on speaking.  Although some argue that speaking causes many problems, it far outnumbers the them with it's benefits.  For example, one of the reasons I don't like texting is because I have been at the center of misunderstandings where if the words had been spoken, there would have not been a conflict.  At the beginning of the year in HOA, my teacher thought it would be fun to do an icebreaker activity, and we were to get in alphabetical order without speaking.  It was very inconvenient and weird, and even then I saw on a small scale how muddled and bleak the world would be without spoken language.  

Assessing knowledge

Are there reasons to be skeptical of your knowledge claims?

There are many reasons to be skeptical of what we know.  Because much of what we have learned in school, for example, we have not seen ourselves, it is hard to confirm what we know. Some choose to be skeptical about all global matters, while others simply question academics.
One reason to be skeptical is because of the question, 'how can we really know if knowledge exists?' Although the world needs standards to communicate, sometimes they are also questionable and it is hard to find a common ground to base future claims on.
Because the world's population is so large, there are little opportunities and people have little time to attempt to confirm what they know.  Not only is it imposible, but also inconvenient and ineffeciant.  Therefore, we have every right to be skeptical of knowledge.  Information and knowledge in the 21st century is readily available, unlike the past, making it even more likely for people to be skeptical, but not act on it.
One way to circumvent the confirmation problem would be to simply see or experience something for yourself.  However, this is not very convenient or efficient, and would be a great amount of trouble for one to go through just to confirm something trivial.  Therefore, it is important that people have a trusted number or sources; ones that they know are right from what they have seen.  This would greatly minimize the skepticism and provide for a clearer view of the world. 

The Allegory of the Cave: Questions

How does this allegory relate to Plato's likely definition of happiness?

How can we really define education and knowledge if we are living in a metaphorical cave?

How might the allegory of the cave be a representation of life after death and religion?