I think the debate is more Logographic vs. Alphabet, rather than Logographic vs. the Latin Alphabet.
There are pros and cons. A big con with Alphabets is that words lose their meaning over times. I find reading Old English (1500 years old) to be less comprehensible than "modern" Latin, despite being a native english speaker, and only knowing a little latin.
I find reading even Early Modern English (400 years old) an effort initially before I get reacquainted with it (Shakespeare).
In 300 years time I hate to think what English speakers will think of our texts.
That said, if I had to choose another language to learn, it would be one with an Alphabet, which seems far easier to me to learn, and type, than memorizing 1000s of symbols.
There are pros and cons. A big con with Alphabets is that words lose their meaning over times. I find reading Old English (1500 years old) to be less comprehensible than "modern" Latin, despite being a native english speaker, and only knowing a little latin.
I find reading even Early Modern English (400 years old) an effort initially before I get reacquainted with it (Shakespeare).
In 300 years time I hate to think what English speakers will think of our texts.
That said, if I had to choose another language to learn, it would be one with an Alphabet, which seems far easier to me to learn, and type, than memorizing 1000s of symbols.