It is often argued humans will speak one united language in the future. There are differing views whether this would be a positive advancement or damaging one. I believe this approach has both advantages and disadvantages.
On the positive side, one language might contribute to communication throughout the world at ease. It means, if one language is utilized by everyone, individuals will able to understand each other deeply and take advantage of it. Deprive areas, for instance, usually, have a local language which is a burden for tourists to forge a communication or even fulfill their basic demands such as renting accommodation. Therefore, the same language would be a great remedy for tackling this problem and increasing the tourism revenue in regional districts and also lift them from poverty.
On the negative side, our cultural heritages are in numerous languages. Even in a sole country, there are numerous live languages used in a daily life. Obviously, each nation must preserve its customs and inform the next generations with their rich traditions and it is not going to happen unless conserving local languages. An array of ancient poems and books have been written in local languages with the aim of conveying the ethical and cultural message to youngsters will be useless if local languages disappeared. Resulting from this, being bilingual and knowing a unique mutual language seems more reasonable to satisfy in-depth communication among nations instead of knowing only one language.
In balance, although speaking one language seems desirable, there are a few demerits which are undeniable. I suggest having a mutual in common language as a second language to meet the needs of globalization and communication among individuals.
It is
often
argued humans will speak one united
language
in the future. There are differing views whether this would be a
positive
advancement or damaging one. I believe this approach has both advantages and disadvantages.
On the
positive
side, one
language
might contribute to
communication
throughout the world at
ease
. It means, if one
language
is utilized
by everyone, individuals will able to understand each other
deeply
and take advantage of it. Deprive areas,
for instance
,
usually
, have a
local
language
which is a burden for tourists to forge a
communication
or even fulfill their basic demands such as renting accommodation.
Therefore
, the same
language
would be a great remedy for tackling this problem and increasing the tourism revenue in regional districts and
also
lift them from poverty.
On the
negative
side, our cultural heritages are in numerous
languages
. Even in a sole country, there are numerous
live
languages
used
in a daily life.
Obviously
, each nation
must
preserve its customs and inform the
next
generations with their rich traditions and it is not going to happen unless conserving
local
languages
. An array of ancient poems and books have
been written
in
local
languages
with the aim of conveying the ethical and cultural message to youngsters will be useless if
local
languages
disappeared. Resulting from this, being bilingual and knowing a unique mutual
language
seems more reasonable to satisfy in-depth
communication
among nations
instead
of knowing
only
one language.
In balance, although speaking one
language
seems desirable, there are a few demerits which are undeniable. I suggest having a mutual in common
language
as a second
language
to
meet
the needs of globalization and
communication
among individuals.