Should we learn to speak Esperanto?

I've often thought that it would have been good if Esperanto had kicked off, but it didn't, so there's not much point in learning it now.

Latin was once the universal language - it still is if you consider scientific names for things, plus Latin masses are still held around the world (albeit much more selectively than they used to be).

no i think that Volapük should be compulsory

How come?

Pük bal neföro saidon

There are some "native" speakers of Esperanto (children whose parent's raised them to speak Esperanto as a first language). I don't think the number of "rules" or not has much influence on whether a language is easy to learn - Esperanto's grammar and vocabulary is primarily derived from Indo-European languages (especially the European branch) and so while likely "easy" to learn for IE language family speakers, may be more challenging for those whose L1 is a language from another language group (e.g. Arabic, Chinese, Swahili, etc) which have fewer features and vocabulary in common for learning as an L2.

Also practically speaking as a modern language Esperanto doesn't "add" much value as an L2 compared to learning a mainstream European language, particularly for those not from a background speaking an IE family language, since there's nowhere that speaking Esperanto is really going to be a useful skill. And unlike ancient languages, there isn't much of an Esperanto culture/corpus that makes it worthwhile to study for the purpose of reading those texts. So it's very much something to do for the sake of doing - perfectly reasonable, but as noted there's no real impetus to do so and since it hasn't already happened, it probably won't.

Finally, you could make arguments for learning any number of languages first - I'd contend Sanskrit would be the best option in the IE family since it's so well defined and codified, and the structure by and large makes a great deal of logical sense (plus, all the cases lay the groundwork for studying any other inflected IE language - there are also a number of cognates with modern European languages too, both from where the words developed independently from the Proto-Indo-European origins, and where the word was brought in as a loanword from Sanskrit or a later Indic language)

I wonder if because there are so many different types of alphabets in the world. Would it be possible to learn to speak Esperanto but write it down phonetically in your native alphabet. So you can still speak and pronounce it whilst it doesn’t discriminate against your alphabet, plus it’s easier for you to learn and other Esperanto speakers will be able to understand your pronunciations

I don't see the point. No country or territory speaks the language, so it has no real use

...because unlike English it's easy to learn and doesn't have the same colonising history behind it.

What in earth does that mean? 'colonising history'?

bring back Skt

I assume they mean colonialist implications behind the spread of the language and adoption of it as a widespread language. However this is true of basically any widespread world language - Spanish, Portuguese, English, Arabic, even historically Latin, Sanskrit etc all were a result of that.

OP has sort of missed that almost necessarily imposing any language upon other groups itself does have colonialist implications - invariably it benefits one group to have everyone speaking the same language more than another (also in this case, Esperanto being almost purely constructed on the basis of European language forms, very much just continues that programme).

The only way to avoid that would be to encourage purely native/indigenous languages/dialects, but that then runs contrary to the aim of trying to create any kind of universal language, and even having mutually intelligible indigenous languages/dialects in a region isn't always likely!

One language is never enough?
sorry I have to be honest and admit I have no clue what you just wrote.