I think you can just accept that as a tautology. If a bunch of humans want to save their culture then by definition it has some human value in saving it. A sep

I think you can just accept that as a tautology. If a bunch of humans want to save their culture then by definition it has some human value in saving it. A separate question is whether we have a duty to help _other_ cultures in their quest for self-preservation. I think there are altruistic reasons for doing so stemming from the fact that most people value their own culture so we can empathetically understand why others would want to preserve theirs. There are also interesting biological and sociological arguments around diversity and resilience of the species that don't rely on altruism. The question specifically about language is asking something different though. So this conversation should just be about languages where the group that spoke it no longer has enough interest to continue that tradition. So the question becomes should we save the language of other cultures for them? I don't think there is a strong case (other than academic preservation). Arguments about the intrinsic relationship of language to culture are valid but fall apart when the members of the culture itself don't care enough to preserve the language.