&gt;<i>I really don&#x27;t like that language is often conflated with having a distinct culture. I acknowledge that there is some connection between language and culture, but I don&#x27;t think having a distinct culture necessitates a distinct language.</i><p>Having a distinct culture doesn&#x27;t necessitate having a distinct language, but having an existing distinct culture in a specific language necessitates preserving the language for preserving it -- even just the tons of literature, poetry, song, etc, in that culture, not to mention worldviews and philosophical outlooks expressed in words, etymology, proverbs, shared expressions, etc.<p>(Also cultures with distinct languages are also more distinct than cultures with shared languages -- except of course if the languages are close cousins of the same family and the cultures have been co-existing for centuries already. An english speaking China will be a very different culture).<p>And we haven&#x27;t even mentioned the Shapir&#x2F;Worf hypothesis:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Linguistic_relativity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Linguistic_relativity</a><p>&gt;<i>Even if that was the case, what would be wrong with cultivating a world wide culture?</i><p>You mean besides obliterating every existing culture and using it for parts?<p>Everything that&#x27;s wrong with monocultures of all kinds and singular ways of thinking and doing things (less evolutionary adaptable, less competition among different viewpoints, poorer breadth of experiences and outlooks, etc)