Like other commenters in this thread, I find the author's arguments to be weak and tautological and/or based on invalid premises. I don't think we should care

Like other commenters in this thread, I find the author's arguments to be weak and tautological and/or based on invalid premises. I don't think we should care about keeping as many languages spoken as possible. Collective human culture is fluid, and subject to evolutionary pressures. If the human species converges to fewer languages because it allows us to do whatever we do more effectively, great. Going against that is just not practical and a waste of time. In France, the modern French language has been pushed onto the population a few hundred years ago, at the detriment of local dialects ("patois"). In the recent years, there have been government initiatives to force schools in certain regions to teach their former dialects. What's the point? Those dialects are close to dead anyway, and take up valuable teaching times. Kids are already graduating high school barely able to write and read French properly- they have very little to benefit from by spending time learning such dialects. Sure, they are important to ~archive~ culturally and historically, and there's nothing wrong with funding a few scholars working on that, but that's it. What is important to preserve is the knowledge that allows one to learn a language. In other words, if German were to disappear, that's fine, and we shouldn't make any efforts at attempting to preserve it. What we should do, however, is document German as much as possible (its vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, idioms, native works, etc.) such that if one needs to learn German 100 years later, it's possible to do so. The basis for that is two-fold: practicality (if an ancient German text is discovered but no one speaks German daily anymore, at least scholars can still decipher it), and preservation of human culture (but in a way that doesn't go against pragmatism, which the approach described by the author in the article is). The same debate applies to other things, e.g. flora/fauna. Of course, when species are becoming close to extinct because of humans destroying environments, we should do something about it. But species go extinct all the time because that's just how nature works, and how it worked much before we got here. In this light, what's the sense of trying to preserve plants or animals artificially?