Is preserving languages a good thing?

[FlatAssembler]

So, what do you guys here think, is preserving languages a good thing? In other words, is it a good thing that there are so many different languages in the world today?
I've studied quite a bit of linguistics, and linguistics doesn't really seem to give us an answer to that question. And more I think about it, more it seems to me that it's not a good thing. The losses that different languages cause are obvious: a lot of resources and time is spent on translation, a lot of resources and time is spent on language learning, language barriers undoubtedly make it easier to implement censorship... And the benefits of keeping the languages are questionable.
Sure, for scientific reasons, it's a good thing to document languages before they disappear. But that's it, document the languages that are already there. Keeping the languages alive won't reveal us secrets of historical linguistics. Languages that could give us information to solve the mysteries of historical linguistics, such as, when it comes to Croatian toponyms, Illyrian or Pelasgian, those languages have been dead for millennia. Wasting resources to preserve modern languages won't bring them back.
In some ideal world in which there was some language, such as Esperanto, which everybody knew, preserving languages wouldn't be so wasteful, and maybe not even so pointless. But that's not what's going on. In some parts of Africa, people are forced to learn more than three languages just to be able to communicate on a job.
Do I really gain something by some relatively small language, such as Croatian, being my native language, instead of some big language such as English, Spanish, Chinese or Russian? I don't see it. As far as I can see, there is nothing useful available in Croatian that's not available in English. Sometimes, on the Internet, there is useful stuff (when it comes to programming, for example) available in Chinese or Russian but not in English, but I don't see that there is anything useful available in Croatian but not in English.
Even when it comes to Croatian history and current events, am I really more qualified to talk about those things just because I speak Croatian? Or does it, in fact, lead me astray? I thought I was more qualified to talk about Croatian history because I could search for ironic meanings in names and assert that an event is mythological, and people who don't speak Croatian can hardly search for ironic meanings in names. In this case, knowledge of Croatian has led me astray. And who knows about my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms, has studying Croatian toponyms led me closer to the truth, or if I would be closer to the truth if I simply trusted the mainstream linguistics (most of which is available in English).

[Brian37]

Yes and no. Depends on context. 

The English language has certainly changed over the centuries. If you look at Middle Age English vs today, lots of it has changed. 

Language changes over time too. Words get added all the time to dictionaries. 

Language certainly is important to preserve from a archeological and history aspect. It is why we know what Ancient Egyptians thought. But outside historians and archeologists there are plenty of dead languages humans don't use anymore.

I don't speak ancient latin. And I am sure language will look different 10,000 years from now, if our species manages to preserve ourselves that long.

[FlatAssembler]

Yes and no. Depends on context. 

The English language has certainly changed over the centuries. If you look at Middle Age English vs today, lots of it has changed. 

Language changes over time too. Words get added all the time to dictionaries. 

Language certainly is important to preserve from a archeological and history aspect. It is why we know what Ancient Egyptians thought. But outside historians and archeologists there are plenty of dead languages humans don't use anymore.

I don't speak ancient latin. And I am sure language will look different 10,000 years from now, if our species manages to preserve ourselves that long.

I meant primarily preserving endangered languages, I think it's clear from the context.

[Brian37]

Yes and no. Depends on context. 

The English language has certainly changed over the centuries. If you look at Middle Age English vs today, lots of it has changed. 

Language changes over time too. Words get added all the time to dictionaries. 

Language certainly is important to preserve from a archeological and history aspect. It is why we know what Ancient Egyptians thought. But outside historians and archeologists there are plenty of dead languages humans don't use anymore.

I don't speak ancient latin. And I am sure language will look different 10,000 years from now, if our species manages to preserve ourselves that long.

I meant primarily preserving endangered languages, I think it's clear from the context.

I can't put this down as an "either/or" proposition.

Times change, so in that context, no. 

History wise and archeological wise, yes, it should be preserved to learn from, but that does not mean it needs to be clung to.

Enough humans should care enough to document it historically yes, but times change as well.

[no one]

Extinction, in all of its forms, is immune to any human endeavor. Language is an evolving entity. The English spoken in America today, is not quite the same language as it was 50 years ago, nor is that version the same as it was 50 years prior to that. The more humans intermingle, the more cultures fuse, the more homogenized communication between them becomes. More than likely, there isn't anyone alive today who will live long enough to witness the Spanglishization of all human communication, but that day may be on the horizon.

[Brian37]

Extinction, in all of its forms, is immune to any human endeavor. Language is an evolving entity. The English spoken in America today, is not quite the same language as it was 50 years ago, nor is that version the same as it was 50 years prior to that. The more humans intermingle, the more cultures fuse, the more homogenized communication between them becomes. More than likely, there isn't anyone alive today who will live long enough to witness the Spanglishization of all human communication, but that day may be on the horizon.

Yep. There was no word for "selfie" 50 years ago. Most people today say, "I am going to talk a walk" and not "I am going to take a constitutional."

Why should I worry about what language is going to be like 100 years from now after I am dead? The only thing I am concerned about after I die, isn't that times change, because they always do, but humanity always keeps history in mind to learn from so that we don't repeat the horrors of the past.

This also is why I hate asshole bigots who say stupid shit like, "Jews will not replace us." No  humans live forever, and all of use get replaced by future generations, and we have always migrated too.

[The Grand Nudger]

The english of today isn't even the same across state lines.... just in the US. I guarantee that me and my boy can have an entire conversation that would be unintelligible to anyone who doesn't speak type two shift. A dialect not widely spoken until after WW2. Mull that over. Communicating with the grey and wizened southern set is just as difficult for me as communicating with me can be for someone from boston.

We use a separate dialect than our own (still living) grandparents.

[arewethereyet]

The english of today isn't even the same across state lines.... just in the US.  I guarantee that me and my boy can have an entire conversation that would be unintelligible to anyone who doesn't speak type two shift.  A dialect not widely spoken until after WW2.  Mull that over.  Communicating with the grey and wizened southern set is just as difficult for me as communicating with me can be for someone from boston.

We use a separate dialect than our own (still living) grandparents.

Hearing my husband speak after he had a conversation with his southern country grandparents was like listening to a foreign language for me.  It would always take a little while for him to revert back to something closer to the midwestern English I speak.  I still cringe a bit at his grasp on past tense...it's not knowed or growed for god's sake.  I spent a few years trying to correct his grammar until I finally gave up and realized it's just easier to translate in my own head what he is saying.  It's more difficult to control my eyes from rolling out of my head.

The SC speech I hear from him is nothing like what I thought was a standard accent based on the odd lilt spoken by my family from the Outer Banks.  

Language is very different across this country.  Just ask around - is it soda, pop, or CoCola.  Depending on where you are the answer is different.

There's nothing wrong with the differences - there are many differences we need to learn to accept and roll with.  Language is but one of those things.

[Mr Greene]

The real problem is when nationalist groups start holding it up as a means to beat the people who aren't part of their 'in-group' over the head and impose barriers to immigration.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or when people use croatian toponyms to suggest that well documented attempts at ethnic cleansing, in living memory, never happened. To a person who participated in the conflict, no less. That's definitely a problem, that's the rabbit hole op went down and mentions in his post....and is now blaming on dead languages.

Learning a language didn't do that to you, Flat.