>>1
>How come its not more widespread?
Esperanto is Euro-centric. While it might be easier for someone speaking a Romance, Germanic, or Slavic language to pick up, even speakers of other kinds of Indo-European languages would have a harder time.
Esperanto has no economic incentive for speakers to learn it. When people choose to learn a second language for international communication, such as English or Mandarin Chinese, they do so because they see an economic benefit to themselves.
Esperanto also has no speaker base to speak of when compared to the largest languages in the world. For the same reason very few outsiders would go and learn Siberian Yupik, they would not choose to learn Esperanto. Who's there to talk to but a handful of people on the internet?
Finally Esperanto has no culture of it's own in an anthropological sense. Languages are inherently tied to cultures. Cultures are what makes languages interesting to learn for many who do not learn them for economic purposes.
>>7
>...because it is a language "optimized" to be as easily learnable as possible (or as less complicated as possible)
This is complete bullshit. No language is easier to learn than any other. For a speaker of, say, Spanish, it might be very easy to pick up. But if you speak, say, Pitjantjatjara, you're fucked.