While some individuals argue that authorities should invest in preserving native languages, others advocate that a significant amount of money should be spent on practice-based subjects, such as technology and science. From my perspective, governments should place greater emphasis on promoting practical subjects, even though preserving native languages is crucial for its users to represent their national identity.
On the one hand, by investing more in practical subjects like technology and science, governments can accelerate their development. This means that technological renovation will occur more rapidly, which is important in improving individuals’ lives and in tackling global issues. For instance, by spending resources on practical subjects, scientists can discover the alternative venues of treatment for diseases, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. As a result, governments can make positive differences in people’s lives and solve global problems in a more rapid way by investing in practice-oriented subjects.
On the other hand, preserving cultural features, including local languages, is essential in representing the identity of a nation. In other words, without government intervention, indigenous languages may disappear as a result of globalization. For example, German, Spanish and Chinese languages represent their nations’ cultural anf historical significance, making them unique in the global level. Thus, authorities can conserve their national identities by spending more resources on saving local languages from fast-pacing globalization.
To sum up, some people believe that policymakers should invest in preserving native languages, whereas others think that they should invest in practice-oriented subjects, like technology and science. In my opinion, although preserving indigenous languages is vital for strengthening national identity, governments should spend a large amount of money on promoting practical subjects.