There is an ongoing debate regarding the fact that, with the rise of globalization, there has been a growing emphasis on learning English as a universal language. A group of individuals believe that this could lead to the loss of local languages and cultures. However, others claim that it is essential for international communication and economic opportunities.
Examining the former opinion, the primary argument the supporters would put forward is the fear of losing local identities. This is because humankind will eventually homogenize; with everyone speaking the same language, we would not preserve centuries of linguistic history. In addition, they also believe that small local communities may disappear because they could be put under the protection of larger communities.
On the contrary, those in favor of the latter opinion have their own arguments. To begin with, they argue that having one spoken language could be helpful in different work fields, such as international communication and economics, because it could allow people from different countries to collaborate together. Moreover, the flow of work-related information could avoid slowdowns, like those caused by translators.
To conclude and offer my position, there are convincing arguments both for and against the use of English as a universal language. However, I certainly favor the former opinion because preserving all the languages means taking care of their background history.