Chinese ideograms - have HUGE advantages over orthographic scripts, in that you can write any language with then (minus your agglutinations). If true advances are made in learning and such, so that it's not insanely difficult, it would be a good idea.
Chinese ideograms are nothing but stylized hieroglyphics. The alphabet was created not by Phœnicians--despite what is commonly claimed- but by the Egyptians themselves, in order to write foreign names. The Japanese, who use Chinese ideographs, prefer to use the much more alphabetic katakana for foreign names. Learning 24 to 28 letters is much easier than having to learn thousands of ideographs. It is, moreover, impractical for polysyllabic languages, as the Koreans found out long ago (Korean script is alphabetic, although it looks ideographic because the letters of syllables are cluttered together, perhaps in order to resemble the prestigious Chinese script).
I have thought of an intermediary solution, one that would have made English spelling as complex as most orthographies: if only the great vowel shift had affected Germanic words, spelling weirdness would have been limited to vowel combinations such as "ea" in "each", and monosyllables such as "love" and grove". If Latinate words had been unaffected, it would have been wonderful.
-
I believe the worst problem with English is that there are two mixed up systems of writing long-versus-short vowels. The Anglo-Saxon system was
"oo"=long and
"o"=short, whereas the French/Latinate system was
open-syllable=long and
closed-syllable=short. Mixing the two... now everything is a godawful mess.
That is how we got to the point you can't predict which are short and which are long. We have the classical examples finite/infinite, line/linear, have/rave, etc, as much as the combination of the Germanic spelling hard G in every position with the Latinate soft G in front of E and I (target versus gadget, even for words that are not Latinate).