Is it better to replace all the languages in the world with only one?
These days there are a lot of countries in the world having common languages but there are also some which have their own unique languages based on their own history, however, unfortunately because of some reasons such as war and probably the hardness of their language, they have stopped using it and therefore it is dying out. In this respect, it is probable that at the beginning the people would come across with some problems and confusions. Basically I take the view that languages have been obtained with lots of efforts and losing them would be a serious disaster.
The main disadvantage of losing a language is that the culture of that country which the language had been used in will fade away too. Moreover they are giving up the language which their ancestors fought for and tried to protect up to this day. Another disadvantage of a language dying out is that a lot of university fields and jobs which are somehow related to that language will be taken away. For example a translator who used to make a living out of this field will become jobless. Therefore a lot of job opportunities will be lost and the rate of unemployment will increase.
On the other hand, the main and only advantage of having fewer languages in the world is that people can spend time learning all or most of the popular languages efficiently. As a result they won’t have problems communicating with other people and understanding other countries language when travelling abroad.
To conclude, the disadvantages of having fewer languages certainly outweighs the advantages. And it is not worth destroying a countries culture and job opportunities, only to have an easier and better life.
Hossein Rastegar Moghadam