The Death of Diversity (in more than one sense)

[Zepp]

An article that I find a little disturbing: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050307/ap_on_sc/apn_dying_cultures

Knowledge Fades As Africa Languages Die

Mon Mar 7, 8:05 AM ET

By TERRY LEONARD, Associated Press Writer

MAPUTO, Mozambique - A U.N. Conference on Trade and Development report on protecting traditional knowledge argues that beyond a devastating impact on culture, the death of a language wipes out centuries of know-how in preserving ecosystems — leading to grave consequences for biodiversity.

The United Nations (news - web sites) estimates half of the world's 6,000 languages will disappear in less than a century. Roughly a third of those are spoken in Africa and about 200 already have less than 500 speakers. Experts estimate half the world's people now use one of just eight languages: Chinese, English, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Portuguese and French.

 

[Hand Sword]

Exactly what globalists would like, one world economy, one world point of view...... A coming together of the human family.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Could you explain what--and who--you mean by, "globalists?"

 

[Ray]

Not to worry. Those who embrace evolution can take solice that these changes are due to survival of the fittist taking dominance of their domain. Those who embrace Judeo-Christian beliefs can rest at ease knowing that God will take care of everything. I'm not sure what solice people of other beliefs can take in their belief systems.

As far as the languages go, if approx 20% of the world lives in the People's Repuplic of China and the gov't is trying to standardize the language then about 20% of the world's population will be expected to speak Chinese.

About 16% of the world's population lives in India (where Hindi is dominant?).
4.5% live in the US (not to count other English speaking nations).

Sure there will be a "world economy" but there will also be local economies, too. Some business have few barriers to entry and will tend to be locally owned.

 

[Crom]

According to the 1991 census only 22% of the indian population peaks Hindi as a mother tongue. Its got 114 languages! Granted the top 12 make up 75% but still pretty impressive.

Got that little gem here http://www.censusindia.net/cendat/language/language_main.html


As for the original topic its a sad state of affairs, how am i supposed to justify travelling through the summer if everywhere becomes just like everywhere else? The loss of cultures is horrific and some without even records of them taken.

 

[MisterMike]

Not to mention Gaelic and Sicilian.

 

[ginshun]

How many lanuages have already died out in the course of human history? I see that it can have an adverse effect, but isn't it just a fact of life? I mean what are we really supposed to do to stop it, and is it really even that important to stop it?

I don't think it is like there are many people out there that are specifically trying to kill off as many lanuages as they can. I seems to me like something that just happens. I am all for trying to stop genocidal maniacs in Africa (or whatever), but aside from that, what can we really do?

 

[Ray]

I don't think it is like there are many people out there that are specifically trying to kill off as many lanuages as they can. I seems to me like something that just happens...

Darn, I thought it was another thing that we could blame GW Bush for.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Not to worry. Those who embrace evolution can take solice that these changes are due to survival of the fittist taking dominance of their domain. Those who embrace Judeo-Christian beliefs can rest at ease knowing that God will take care of everything. I'm not sure what solice people of other beliefs can take in their belief systems.

I don't take solace in either - you are referring to social Darwinism, which is bunk, and a very childlike and passive view of religion, I think, as well.

It's sad that we are losing so many languages, in part because different languages emphasize or invent different words for different concepts. I think we'll be losing not only cultural diversity and heritage, but also a cognitive component of the Earth's population as well.

 

[theletch1]

How many different languages are used to construct the modern english (read american) language that are no longer spoken? I would point to the grunts and whistles of prehistoric man as the first language used by mankind. That one has been gone for a while. Through out history I'm sure that tons of languages have "gone extinct" or have changed so much as to be unrecognizable to the original speakers of the language. The trick is to figure out how to preserve these languages much as we are working to preserve MachuPichu and the pyramids of Egypt. Are there no paleo-linguists out there? Sure, it's a shame that these languages will eventually die out as viable languages but what are the alternatives? Are we to force the learning of obscure languages by people who will never actually have a need for that language? That sounds frightfully close to "Hey, yer in America now, how 'bout learnin' to freakin' speak English".

 

[Ray]

I don't take solace in either - you are referring to social Darwinism, which is bunk, and a very childlike and passive view of religion, I think, as well.

Serious? I wasn't referring to social Darwinism; I was referring to the possible physical evolution of the species by "nature" selecting those peoples that gain an advantage over those who don't speak the dominant language(s).

Just as, in certain areas of the US, people who speak English very well are more likely to obtain a higher paying job than those who speak no English (or poor English). This makes the English speaker to be more likely to have children that survive and reproduce; whereas the non-English speaker will probably have a more difficult time of it. Thus "nature" would select the English speaker and deselect the non-English speaker. I'm not saying it's fair; and don't mistake my example for bigotry. It's just an example of how I understand evolutionary forces in nature.

It's sad that we are losing so many languages, in part because different languages emphasize or invent different words for different concepts. I think we'll be losing not only cultural diversity and heritage, but also a cognitive component of the Earth's population as well.

Agreed.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Just as, in certain areas of the US, people who speak English very well are more likely to obtain a higher paying job than those who speak no English (or poor English). This makes the English speaker to be more likely to have children that survive and reproduce; whereas the non-English speaker will probably have a more difficult time of it

I don't think this is really true anymore. I don't think 'succesful, high paying job' leads to 'more children that survive'

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Serious? I wasn't referring to social Darwinism; I was referring to the possible physical evolution of the species by "nature" selecting those peoples that gain an advantage over those who don't speak the dominant language(s).

Just as, in certain areas of the US, people who speak English very well are more likely to obtain a higher paying job than those who speak no English (or poor English). This makes the English speaker to be more likely to have children that survive and reproduce; whereas the non-English speaker will probably have a more difficult time of it. Thus "nature" would select the English speaker and deselect the non-English speaker. I'm not saying it's fair; and don't mistake my example for bigotry. It's just an example of how I understand evolutionary forces in nature.

Agreed.

I think I'd go with what Fearless Freep said ~ I think it would be social pressures, rather than "natural selection" - and it doesn't necessarily mean that better language integration = more kids and grandkids. I see your point, I'm just arguing the technicalities.

 

[Ray]

I don't think this is really true anymore. I don't think 'succesful, high paying job' leads to 'more children that survive'

It leads to people who get better nutrition, better medical care, etc. Those things lead to a better chance of survival.[/QUOTE]
Same as the example given in children's text books on evolution: The giraffe got its long neck because it was able to eat better (better nutrition) because it could reach the vegitation; the animals that couldn't did out (ignore any vegitarian mammals that you see with short necks).

Personally, I don't believe in evolution though.

 

[ginshun]

It leads to people who get better nutrition, better medical care, etc. Those things lead to a better chance of survival.

Same as the example given in children's text books on evolution: The giraffe got its long neck because it was able to eat better (better nutrition) because it could reach the vegitation; the animals that couldn't did out (ignore any vegitarian mammals that you see with short necks).

Personally, I don't believe in evolution though.[/QUOTE]
Its not really the same though, because even the people in the lower class in the US generally do well enough to survive. Its not like you can't find tons of examples of people who would be considered in the lower class based on income, that have 10 kids running around. If the parents don't make enough to pay for them, the government just does it for them.

 

[Ray]

Its not really the same though, because even the people in the lower class in the US generally do well enough to survive. Its not like you can't find tons of examples of people who would be considered in the lower class based on income, that have 10 kids running around. If the parents don't make enough to pay for them, the government just does it for them.

Since it was an example, only an example we can change it round: how about people in other countries where the gov't doesn't take care of the lower socio-economic class? Aren't those the ones who are losing their languages and cultures because they're either being absorbed or dying because they don't/can't be absorbed?

Resistance is futile...

 

[Zepp]

Ever read Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams? It's a great book, both entertaining and enlightening. The last chapter contains a short little parable which explains the situation of the human species quite well.

 

[ginshun]

Since it was an example, only an example we can change it round: how about people in other countries where the gov't doesn't take care of the lower socio-economic class? Aren't those the ones who are losing their languages and cultures because they're either being absorbed or dying because they don't/can't be absorbed?

Resistance is futile...

Easy Borg man

Sure, that one works for me. I assume that is exactly how most of this is happening. There is a tribe somewhere that speaks there own language. They live in an environment that is so harsh that they just can't make it, either that or something else happend that they just don't have the skills it takes to survive there. In order to survive, they must integrate themselves in with a different, most likely larger group of people, one who either has the skills or technology required for them to live. If this second group speaks a different language. After a generation or two, the first language has all but disappeared.

That is pretty much how I see these languages dieing out. It doesn't seem to me that anybody but the people that speak them can really do anything about it, and honestly, I don't see it as being that big of a deal.

I am sure there is some knowledge loss as a language dies, but I would think that it is really pretty minimal. I don't know for sure because I have never studied it, but I don't see why people would forget things when they start to speak a different language. Obviously some stuff is "Lost in Translation" as the saying goes, but I doubt if it is all that much.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"I don't know because I have never studied it, but..."

Perhaps you should. We're losing a lot.

 

[Blind]

Personally, I don't believe in evolution though.

How do you mean?