Pretty much everyone has heard of a “universal language”. The idea is so interesting that it’s gone viral, and not just in television series like “Firefly”, but also in politics. In fact, as some of you may know, we already have a universal language: Latin. The only problem with Latin is, however, no one can speak it natively.
So we find ourselves with a problem: if we want a universal language, we’re going to have to base it off of a pre-existing one. However, before we go and decide what language to keep, we need to think about whether or not we should even have a universal language.
They are extremely useful for getting ideas across (no more translating, or language based miscommunication), decreasing racial intolerance, and many other things, but they do have a downside; for there to be a universal language, there needs to be popularity in that language, and with popularity rising in one language, popularity decreases in another. In other words: having a universal language kills off other languages, and with those languages all of their history, and culture is killed as well.
Of course, one can attempt to translate it all, but the whole cause of the language's downfall is from a lack of popularity, meaning that hardly anyone will care then, but certainly many will care later (not necessarily for that specific language, but definitely for the whole of lost languages).
So the question is: is it really worth all of the wealth of the culture and history of all of the minor languages to have a single universal language?