&gt; 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<p>I&#x27;m not saying other languages shouldn&#x27;t be preserved. I&#x27;m saying there should be a standard language. I don&#x27;t think that one precludes the other.<p>&gt; An english speaking China will be a very different culture<p>Maybe, but why would that be worse (or better for that matter)?<p>&gt; 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>That&#x27;s an interesting point, but on the other hand I&#x27;m still not convinced that this means that having a lot of distinct languages is &quot;better&quot;. While on the other hand, there would be clear benefits to everyone speaking the same language or having at least one common language.<p>&gt; You mean besides obliterating every existing culture and using it for parts?<p>Isn&#x27;t that what always happens with all culture as it evolves?<p>&gt; Everything that&#x27;s wrong with monocultures of all kinds and singular ways of thinking and doing things [...]<p>This is where I strongly disagree. I think that some things are tools for a specific purpose and should be standardized. Language is a tool to convey facts and ideas.<p>I recognize that culture should not be standardized, of course.