Diversity is great, but a world in which everyone can fluently converse with everyone else would be the exact opposite of boring. In fact, I would say that this sort of universal communication would be great because diversity is great; it would allow all of those different cultures to share their cultures with others, with greater ease.
Of course the best of both worlds is a world where everyone is multilingual, with everyone sharing at least one language with every other person. I think this is more likely than a world in which Arabic is the universal language. I think that the increasing coverage and accuracy of machine translation will create a synthetic/"soft" version of the universally multilingual scenario. Right now machine translation is still fairly shit (although still serviceable!), but I don't think that will be the case in 50 years.
First, Arabic itself is an incredibly fragmented language. Almost every country or region that speaks it has its own colloquial version of it which may or may not be mutually intelligible. As a Lebanese person I can understand Syrians fairly easily, Jordanians with a bit of straining and the other person speaking slightly slower than usual, Egyptians with a lot of straining and speaking slowly and Saudis not at all. Theoretically, we could communicate using the formal(written) Arabic, but most people, especially newer generations, tend to suck at that as it's a much more difficult language that's learned only in the context of school and pretty much almost never used outside, at least in Lebanon, that is. The colloquial languages are to the formal Arabic as French/Spanish/Italian are to Latin, basically.
Second, all good universities I know of in the region teach in English or French rather than Arabic. Though the trend is tipping towards English of late. This is because most of the region was put either under British or French mandate after the Ottomans were ousted during WW1. This was detrimental in many ways which I won't go into, but one of the good things that came out of it was that they established many schools and universities. In fact, most of the good ones I know were founded by French, British or American missionaries during that period.
Third, well, the internet(and media in general), English is the dominant language in media most people consume. I learned English from watching cartoons as kid. I've almost never stepped foot in an English speaking country(except for a couple of weeks in the U.S. 2 years ago) and yet I can speak, and write, with almost native proficiency.
I am Palestinian-Jordanian and I do understand almost all slang accents fairly well. The only one I have trouble with is the Moroccan/Algerian. I understand it as long as they do not inject French or Berber words and speak slowly.
The levant accents are extremely similar that the gulf cannot really differentiate between Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese and Palestinian (although we see them as distinct and can pick up which accent is spoken from just a word or two). The same phenomenon is seen in the gulf. Iraq is pretty distinct, yet closer to the gulf. Everyone understands Egypt as it is pretty close to Standard Arabic (just like the Levant), although its quirks have become known through songs, movies and shows which are dominated by Egyptians.
As for Standard (or Classical) Arabic, everyone in Jordan (or most of the Arab world) who went through some sort of schooling can speak it, and understand it perfectly. The news, newspapers and any formal event is given in proper Arabic. All Arabic literature, books, and writings are also in Standard Arabic.
My point is, while I agree with you that the use of Arabic is degrading, I doubt it will ever be overtaken by French or English (depending on where you live). English and French are being seen as a symbol of being educated, and those who are uneducated try to speak English or French (albeit terribly). Some who like to show off, or have some sort of identity struggle, rely heavily on French or English. Outside of these insecurities, Arabic is pretty much always in use.
I consider myself an Arab -- whether I'm proud of that is another issue, but there is not identity crisis. I can understand the news, read the newspaper, official documents, etc, etc, but I would not even dream of replying to a comment in Arabic as I can so easily do in English, and not just because I can't touch-type it, but because I would fail at expressing even simple ideas without a lot of struggling, trying to remember words that differ from the colloquial or(and especially) proper grammar.
While the case of Lebanese people is a bit extreme in this regard, all Arabs are slowly following suit in this regard.
You see, I was not saying that Arabic is so far gone now that nobody uses it, or even that not everybody in the Arab world uses it, that was not the point. I was only commenting on a trend. The parent poster suggested that Arabic was on a course to become dominant worldwide and I find that a laughable idea given the current state of it and its trend(slowly) into oblivion to be replaced by many colloquial languages that simplify the grammar and incorporate foreign languages into it the way this happened with Latin.
An overwhelming majority of the Muslims are not Arab and do not speak Arabic [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#Countries_with_the...
> Arabic speakers are reproducing at a rate that virtually guarantees it.
That's ridiculous. In the 1970s, Chinese birth rate was ~5/woman [1]. It turns out that dynamic systems change with time.
Anyways, to get back on topic: more accessibility will only improve things.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-a-demo...
See figure 6 here:
http://www.aei.org/files/2012/03/21/-fertility-decline-in-th...
.tfel og nac tub thgir ot tfel si C oS .sllac evisrucer dna spool ,spmuj :segaugnal namuh ni deciton t'nevah I taht sgniht ddo wef a sah egaugnal gnimmargorp nredom lacipyt A
.senil trohs daer I woh nopu tceffe hcum evah dluow ti tbuod I ,tfel ot thgir gnidaer ot desu erew I fi ,thgir ot tfel morf gnikcart eye elbaeciton elttil si erehT .)dda thgim I ,sseug detacude na( ti ni sretcarahc 51 tuoba evah yam edoc C ym fo enil a egareva nO
.)daeh ym ot deneppah osla siht( edolpxe sdaeh rieht dna egaugnal evitarepmi na ni edoc emos ta ecnalg neht ohw ,noitaton lacitamehtam gnidaer ni desrev llew era ohw elpoep deciton ev'I ?tpircsavaj koogedelbbog emos gnidaer naht rekciuq yelbaeciton thgir ot tfel morf esorp elbadaer namuh gnidaer si tub ,tnemmoc siht daer ot regnol tib a ekat thgim NH fo sredaer oS .esitcarp elttil a htiw drah oot t'nsi noitcerid rehto eht ni gnidaer ,ecneirepxe ym morF
The people that will control what ideas win will be the ones controlling the media, social networks and communication channels. It doesn't matter if they are just 0.1% of the general population, their ideas will mater more than the ones of the 99.9%. And considering the kinds of ideas that float in the minds of some people, like the "the war against the West will not be won on a battlefield but in the wombs of our mothers" aberration (why do people even think of "war", there is no war, just a peaceful competition among ideas that float from one mind to another, there simply is nothing to fight for, ain't this obvious to all?!), I prefer this situation!