People from different parts of the world are often have their own languages[1] and many countries spent millions of fund to protect endanger[2] languages. Although I believe that languages are an important part of human cultures, I think that it may be beneficial for our world[3]to[4] have less[5] languages.
Firstly[1], I agree that protecting[2] languages from extinction can be useful in terms of[3] culture indentities[4] and linguistic studies. This is because different languages often represent different cultures and ways of doing things.[5] For example. Studies have showed[6] that people who speak a language that does not have tense tend to save more[7] as they view tomorrow the same as today rather than another separate time period like tense-speakers do. This kind of research help people to understand their behaviour[8], and it can not be done without a various types of languages to study at.
However, considering the cost spent on protecting these languages from dying out, the yield that I mentioned above is minimal. A more important thing is that if people only speak some common languages, it can promote a better communication. This may be[1] due to the fact that communication is difficult between people who[2] speak different languages, and interpretors and translators will be hired[3]to enable conversations. This cost can be staggering, especially for international organisations such as the Euro zone or some cross-boarder trading companies.
In conclusion, even though languages provide people and scholars a chance to know more about themselves, I would argue that less[1] languages can encourage international cooperation[2] and effective communications.
