A green new deal for the economy

A new report released by the World Bank has said something that many of us have been arguing for a long time – that dealing seriously with climate change will not damage the economy, as many sceptics claim, but will instead actually boost it. The Bank found that climate change mitigation and adaptation measures could contribute trillions of dollars to the world economy through new jobs, better productivity for farmers, and fewer public health problems.

Jobs could include research and development of new technologies, installing renewable energy projects or retrofitting houses to be more efficient, and a wide range of public transit jobs as car use is discouraged. Crops will be likely to grow more productively as soil quality improves and water is conserved. And public health will be benefited by cleaner water, more nutritious food, and fewer deaths from climate extremes such as heatstroke or freezing.

Of course, money will be needed for this, and a coordinated effort by governments and the public sector, and this is something that the report does not address. Due to the World Bank’s extreme capitalist ideology, they assume that all of the necessary measures can be taken by private companies through a mix of tax incentives (i.e. allowing ‘green’ companies to pay less tax) and new regulations (i.e. controlling what companies can legally do in order to force them to become ‘green’).

This would be very nice, and private companies should absolutely be encouraged to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. But the idea that, in our current capitalist system, companies will take the strong steps that we need purely out of their own self-interest is misguided. The public sector will have to play a large role in bringing forward a ‘Green New Deal’. This means the government will have to be involved in large public infrastructure projects, job creation, designing and implementing new transit systems, and so on. And this means that money must be raised for such projects.

The World Bank report avoids mentioning this, but such revenues could easily be brought in by a tax on carbon. We have discussed this previously in this blog, arguing that rather than the current weak, market-led system for carbon pricing, governments need to simply begin taxing carbon emissions – this will bring in large amounts of revenue in the beginning, as well as quickly forcing companies to find efficiencies and alternatives to their current carbon emissions, essentially achieving two goals with one policy.

States can use the money from the carbon tax to implement Green New Deal policies like the ones suggested by the World Bank, thus further growing the economy and bringing in even more revenue, which in turn can be used to further improve other social systems, such as health, education, social security, and more.

If we are going to truly go green and make our economy sustainable and healthy, we need to approach things in a non-dogmatic way and accept that everyone must play a part – public sector, private sector, and individual citizens. All of us must work together, and we must use all the tools at our disposal if we are going to advance. The World Bank report is a start, although it ignores the important role of government spending – an ideological position that we need to get over if we are going to make real progress.

[ better productivity for farmers, carbon pricing, cleaner water, climate, climate change, climate change mitigation, current capitalist system, damage the economy, development of new technologies, extreme capitalist ideology, government spending, green companies, green deal for economy, Green New Deal, growing the economy, ideological position, individual citizens, job creation, make real progress, new jobs, new regulations, new transit systems, nutritious food, pay less tax, private companies, private sector, public health, public health problems, public infrastructure projects, public sector, public transit jobs, renewable energy projects, retrofitting houses, social systems, soil quality improves, sustainable economy, tax incentives, tax on carbon, taxing carbon emissions, the World Bank report, World Bank, world economy ]

Kurangi Greenpeace, Lebih Banyak Tenaga Ramah Lingkungan

Keadaan semakin buruk bagi LSM lingkungan yang (pernah) dijunjung tinggi, Greenpeace. Kebocoran terbaru menunjukkan bahwa departemen keuangan mereka pada dasarnya tidak mengetahui apa yang dikerjakan oleh LSM ini, dikabarkan bahwa mereka kehilangan $3 Juta AS dalam spekulasi pasar mata uang (skenario yang khususnya sangat aneh mengingat sayap kiri yang umum ini tidak menyukai perusahaan dan lembaga keuangan), dan mereka kembali diserang lagi ketika diketahui bahwa salah satu direktur kampanye mereka biasa melakukan perjalanan dinas dari Luksemburg ke Amsterdam – sangat ironis bagi LSM yang ‘hijau’ di setiap namanya.

Tampaknya semua hal yang salah tetap dilakukan, meskipun ini bukan hal yang pertama – beberapa kampanye Greenpeace beberapa tahun lalu juga gagal. Mereka diminta oleh Wilayah Samudra Hindia Britania untuk melakukan pelestarian laut, keputusan yang kemudian diketahui oleh saluran Wikileaks mengenai apa yang diinginkan oleh pemerintah AS dan Inggris Raya – rancangan pelestarian laut ini memiliki maksud bahwa pulau tersebut dapat terus digunakan sebagai basis militer AS dan juga secara besar-besaran mengurangi kesempatan penduduk asli pulau tersebut untuk kembali.

Beberapa peserta kampanye akar rumput menjadi sangat tidak puas dengan fokus Greenpeace pada pertunjukkan besar dan ramah media yang melibatkan, mendaki, membangun, atau menginvasi kilang minyak. Hal ini sangat jauh dari niat baik publik yang dirumuskan oleh organisasi ini pada tahun 1960an dan 70an, dan ketika mereka berlayar mengelilingi dunia dengan kapal Rainbow Warior yang kemudian diledakkan oleh pemerintah Prancis karena masalah yang ditimbulkan olehnya.

Sangat disayangkan melihat kegagalan LSM yang pernah berjaya, namun disamping angan-angan beberapa sayap kanan dan para penyangkal perubahan iklim, ini bukanlah akhir dunia akan pergerakan hijau – ini hanya menunjukkan betapa pentingnya memiliki gerakan akar rumput yang terorganisir dan kuat, demikian juga LSM dan badan amal terpisah dan profesional.

Terdapat sebuah argumen jika LSM tersebut mendapatkan lebih banyak rasa hormat dari para politikus daripada dari gerakan akar rumput dan oleh karena itu, mereka lebih menguntungkan sesuai dengan tujuan para politikus. Mereka tahu bagaimana berbicara dengan bahasa yang sama seperti politikus, dan untuk menggunakan saluran formal dalam pelaksanaannya; mereka memiliki uang untuk membuat iklan-iklan dan menjalankan kampanye ditargetkan yang dimengerti oleh politikus; mereka sering terlihat seperti politikus (LSM hijau di barat cenderung memiliki staf terutama yang berkulit putih, sama seperti pemerintahan barat).

Namun pada akhirnya, kekuatan asli dari setiap LSM berasal dari ancaman implisit atau eksplisit yang mereka dapatkan dari orang-orang di belakang mereka yang siap menunjukkan dukungan untuk sebuah alasan. LSM memiliki uang, namun tidak sebanyak pelobi minyak atau perusahaan lain – mereka harus memiliki banyak pendukung di belakang mereka untuk benar-benar menakuti politikus agar mendengarkan mereka. Mereka juga membutuhkan gerakan akar rumput dari orang biasa di belakang mereka hanya untuk membuat mereka terlihat normal – untuk memberitahukan kebijakan apa yang mereka wujudkan dan kebijakan lain yang harus dihentikan, dan untuk meyakinkan mereka tidak lupa atas cita-cita asli dan secara harafiah berubah menjadi membosankan, dan juga para politikus status quo seharusnya menjadi lawan.

Gerakan akar rumput seperti Occupy di AS dan Climate Camp di Inggris Raya telah berhasil mendapatkan reaksi kuat dari masyarakat, meskipun tidak bekerja sama dengan LSM. Reaksi kekerasan oleh polisi dan politikus terhadap gerakan ini menunjukkan bahwa mereka didorong dan memiliki dukungan yang cukup untuk menstimulasi perubahan nyata, bahkan jika mereka tiba-tiba ditutup oleh kekuatan masyarakat. Jika kita dapat terus membangun gerakan mendukung keadilan sosial dan lingkungan, kita dapat mengubah dunia bahkan tanpa bantuan kelompok yang tidak patuh seperti Greenpeace.

Diterjemahkan dari Bahasa Inggris, artikel asli di publikasikan tanggal di 26.06.2014:

http://annie65j.blogspot.com/2014/06/less-greenpeace-more-green-power.html

[ LSM lingkungan, pasar mata uang, lembaga keuangan, Greenpeace, Wilayah Samudra Hindia Britania, saluran Wikileaks, Rainbow Warior ]

语言的生与死

在所有与人类息息相关的事物之中，语言可能是其中最重要的一项——比政治、种族，甚至金钱都重要得多。语言很可能是人类文化中与生俱来的部分：它让我们有别于动物，也让我们与众不同，并帮助我们在特定的地方形成了具体的社区。任何一个曾在其他国家，拼命想在附近找到一个能用英语为自己说明某事的人都将明白，在这种时候，当我们不能和他人交谈的时候，我们感到自己是多么“不同”和“被排斥”。语言是我们传达感情和积极、消极情绪的方式；也是我们表达特定信仰和自己文化的工具。

正因如此，当听说在我们全球化的现代社会中，语言的数量正在缩减，才如此令人悲伤。据估计，全球现存6,000至7,000种语言，到2100年，多达90%的语言都可能会消失。其中，许多语言的使用人数仅为10,000人或更少，随着老人去世，而越来越多的年轻人被迫使用世界的主要语言之一，以方便沟通和参与到全球经济中来，这些使用人数更少的语言的详细信息正在消亡。

我们可能会认为这并不重要——在一个拥有70亿人口的星球上，只有10,000人使用的语言，也许并不是那么至关重要？减少语言数量可能还是件好事儿呢，这样我们就更容易相互理解了。让我们想一想圣经故事巴别塔吧——显然，以前所有人都使用同一种语言，直到上帝担心我们在试图修建上天的高塔，并决定让每个人都使用不同的语言，以此迷惑我们，让我们互相为敌。如果我们这样想，再次使用同一种世界性的语言，也就更有利于我们相互合作，了解自己的同胞。

但是，我有不同的看法。每一种语言，即使只有极少数人在使用它，也是人们表达文化和情感的独一无二的方法。每一种语言都说明了各个群体看待世界的方式略有不同——想想那著名的故事吧，住在加拿大北部的因纽特人有40个不同的词汇来描述各种各样的雪（以及不那么出名的事实，英国人也有几乎同样多的词汇来表达各种降雨……）。保护它们，理解它们，有助于我们用不同的方式看待世界，同时也能帮助我们开阔思维。

即使语言只有些微改变，也能表达人类社会的文化多样性，虽然这一点正被现代社会逐渐吞噬。想想日前因俄语和乌克兰语的差别而达成的大宗交易吧，当乌克兰在官方场合暂时禁用俄语之后，俄语使用者即试图脱离乌克兰。作为一个局外人，这两种语言几乎完全一样——对身处俄语或乌克兰语文化的人来说，其中的差异却是巨大且重要的，因为这涉及到了他们所属的群体和社区。

如今，所有人都是残酷的资本主义社会秩序的一部分，伴随着单调的文化和经历。这让我们在很多方面受益，让我们拥有了更舒适的生活。但是，数千年以来，传统的生活方式也让人类获益良多，如果能至少保留小部分这类传统，不失为一件好事，同时，也有助于人数较少、较贫穷的社区保持与众不同，并为自己的身份自豪。语言就是这样的传统，这是身份的载体，在还来得及的时候，我们应该更加努力地保护不同的对话、书写和理解社会的方式。

从英文版翻译而来。原文于 6月4, http://annie65j.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-life-and-death-of-language.html

[ 语言的生与死, 全球化的现代社会, 全球经济中来, 巴别塔, 残酷的资本主义社会 ]

Less Greenpeace, more green power

Things are looking bad for the (once) highly-respected environmental NGO Greenpeace. Recent leaks have shown that their finance department basically doesn’t know what it’s doing, stories have come out that they lost $3m through speculating on currency markets (a particularly bizarre scenario considering the general left-wing dislike of corporations and financial institutions), and they are now under fire again after it was revealed that one of their campaign directors used to fly to work from Luxembourg to Amsterdam – rather ironic for an NGO with ‘green’ in the very name.

It seems that everything that could go wrong is doing so, although this isn’t the first time – some of Greenpeace’s campaigns in recent years have also been flops. They pushed for the British Indian Ocean Territory to be made into a marine reserve, a decision which the Wikileaks cables later revealed to be exactly what the US and UK governments wanted – the marine reserve designation means the islands can continue to be used as a US military base, but massively reduces the chances of the indigenous people of those lands being allowed to return.

Some grassroots campaigners have also become increasingly disgruntled with Greenpeace’s increased focus on big, media-friendly stunts involving climbing buildings or invading oil rigs. This is a long way from the public goodwill that the organization built up in the 1960s and 70s, and when they sailed the world in the famous Rainbow Warrior boat that the French government eventually blew up because of the trouble it was causing them.

It’s a shame to see the downfall of a once great NGO, but despite the wishful thinking of some right-wingers and climate change deniers, it’s not the end of the world for the green movement – it simply shows the importance of having a powerful and organized grassroots movement as well as the more detached and professional NGOs and charities.

There is an argument that NGOs get more respect from politicians than grassroots movements do, and are therefore more likely to succeed in their aims. They know how to speak the same language as politicians, and to use the formal channels for doing so; they have the money to take out advertisements and run targeted campaigns that politicians understand; they often even look like politicians (the green NGOs in the west tend to be primarily staffed by white men, just like western governments).

But ultimately, the real power of any NGO comes from the implicit or explicit threat that they have a lot of people behind them who are willing to show their support for the cause. NGOs have money, but nowhere near as much as oil lobbyists or other corporations – they need to have the weight of numbers behind them to really scare politicians into listening to them. They also need a grassroots movement of ordinary people behind them simply to keep them sane – to tell them what policies they should be pursuing and which ones they should drop, and to make sure they don’t lose sight of their original ideals and literally turn into the boring, status quo politicians they are supposed to be opposing.

Grassroots movements like Occupy in the US and Climate Camp in the UK have managed to gain strong reactions from the state, even without organized NGOs to work with. The often violent reaction of police and politicians to these movements shows that they struck a nerve and had enough support to stimulate real change, even if they were eventually snuffed out by the power of the state. If we can keep building such movements in favor of social and environmental justice, we can change the world even without the help of increasingly wayward groups like Greenpeace.

[ British Indian Ocean Territory, campaign director, Climate Camp in the UK, climate change deniers, climbing buildings, environmental justice, environmental NGO, finance department, financial institutions, French government, grassroots campaigners, grassroots movement, green movement, green power, Greenpeace, Greenpeace's campaigns, invading oil rigs, marine reserve, Occupy in the US, oil lobbyists, public goodwill, Rainbow Warrior boat, right-wingers, run targeted campaigns, social justice, speculating on currency markets, stimulate real change, US military base, violent reaction, western governments, Wikileaks cables ]

Hidup Matinya Bahasa

Bahasa adalah hal terpenting dalam kehidupan manusia - jauh lebih penting dari politik, ras, atau bahkan uang sekalipun.  Mungkin bahasa merupakan bagian yang paling melekat dari budaya manusia, karena bahasa membedakan kita dari hewan, juga membedakan antara kita dan membantu kita membentuk komunitas tertentu di tempat-tempat tertentu.  Mereka yang pernah merasakan berada di negara asing pasti berusaha keras untuk menemukan seseorang di sekitar mereka yang dapat berbahasa Inggris untuk menjelaskan sesuatu. Saat itulah kita akan menyadari betapa 'berbeda' dan merasa 'terasing' ketika kita tidak dapat berbicara kepada orang lain. Bahasa juga merupakan sarana untuk menyampaikan emosi dan perasaan kita, baik positif maupun negatif; demikian juga untuk mengungkapkan keyakinan tertentu dan pengetahuan tentang budaya kita.

Karena itulah, sungguh menyedihkan mendengar adanya bahasa-bahasa yang mati di dunia modern dan global ini.  Saat ini diperkirakan ada sekitar 6.000 hingga 7.000 bahasa yang dituturkan di seluruh dunia, dan hingga 90% dari bahasa-bahasa ini bisa punah pada tahun 2100.  Kebanyakan bahasa-bahasa ini hanya dituturkan oleh kelompok-kelompok yang terdiri dari 10.000 orang atau kurang;  ketika para penutur tua meninggal dan para anggota muda semakin terus-menerus dipaksa untuk memakai salah satu bahasa utama di dunia untuk berkomunikasi dan berpartisipasi dalam ekonomi global, pengetahuan terperinci dari bahasa-bahasa kecil ini pun menghilang.

Mungkin menurut kita hal ini tidak penting - jika hanya 10.000 orang saja yang bertutur dengan sebuah bahasa di planet yang berpenghuni 7 miliar ini, mungkinkah bahasa tersebut tidak terlalu penting? Mungkin lebih baik hanya ada lebih sedikit bahasa, sehingga kita dapat lebih mudah saling memahami.  Coba ingat kembali kisah dari Alkitab tentang Menara Babel - dikisahkan bahwa seluruh umat manusia pada waktu itu bertutur dalam bahasa yang sama, hingga Tuhan khawatir bahwa kita akan mendirikan menara ke surga dan Tuhan memutuskan untuk memberikan setiap orang bahasa yang berbeda agar kita semua bingung dan saling bermusuhan.  Apabila kita melihat pendekatan ini, kita semakin mendekati kembali ke bahasa tunggal yang akan memudahkan kita untuk bekerja sama dan saling memahami sesama kita.

Namun, saya mengambil pendekatan yang berbeda.  Setiap bahasa, sekalipun itu hanya dituturkan oleh segelentir orang saja, mengungkapkan keunikan tersendiri baik secara budaya maupun emosi. Setiap bahasa menunjukkan cara pandang setiap kelompok terhadap dunia dengan cara yang mereka masing-masing - coba pikirkan klaim suku Inuit dari Kanada utara yang terkenal bahwa mereka mempunyai empat puluh kata berbeda untuk salju (bandingkan dengan fakta yang kurang populer bahwa orang Inggris mempunyai banyak kata untuk jenis hujan yang berlainan...). Melestarikan dan memahami bahasa membantu kita membayangkan cara yang berbeda untuk melihat dunia, dan membantu memperluas wawasan kita.

Perubahan kecil dalam bahasa dapat mengungkapkan keragaman budaya manusia yang semakin terkikis di era modern ini.  Coba pikirkan masalah besar yang saat ini diketengahkan antara Rusia dan Ukraina, para penutur bahasa Rusia  berusaha untuk memisahkan diri dari Ukraina setelah bahasa mereka sempat dilarang dalam konteks resmi.   Bagi orang luar, kedua bahasa ini hampir mirip - namun bagi mereka yang campuran antara Rusia dan Ukraina, perbedaan itu terasa sekali dan penting, karena mereka mengatakan sesuatu tentang kelompok dan komunitas asal mereka.

Di dunia saat ini, kita semua menjadi bagian dari tata dunia kapitalis yang mencekik leher, dengan budaya dan pengalaman yang monoton.  Dalam banyak hal, keadaan ini menguntungkan kita dan memungkinkan kita hidup memiliki kehidupan yang lebih nyaman. Namun, akan lebih baik untuk mempertahankan sedikit kehidupan tradisional yang telah kita jalani begitu baik selama ribuan tahun, dan akan sama baiknya untuk membantu komunitas yang lebih kecil, lebih miskin, guna mempertahankan hal yang membuat mereka menonjol dan merasa bangga terhadap identitas mereka sendiri.  Bahasa adalah tradisi dan pembawa identitas, dan seharusnya kita berupaya lebih keras untuk melestarikan cara bertutur, menulis, dan memahami dunia  yang berbeda-beda sebelum terlambat.

Diterjemahkan dari Bahasa Inggris, artikel asli di publikasikan tanggal di 4.06.2014: http://annie65j.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-life-and-death-of-language.html

Hidup Matinya Bahasa, pengetahuan tentang budaya, bahasa-bahasa yang mati, Menara Babel, dunia yang kapitalis, kehidupan tradisional, komunitas yang lebih kecil

中国拥有更光明的未来？

本周，中国发布了两项重要通知——均是旨在保护环境及其孕育的生态系统的立法。看来在饱受国际社会批评多年之后（考虑到许多其他国家在这类问题上的档案，有时这些批评并不公平），中国终于开始关注并推行一些重大改变了。

第一项立法对中国的环境法进行了修订，制定了针对污染者的严厉惩罚。如有此类行为，公司将被“点名批评”，如发现应对公司的污染行为负责的个人，也可能面临着最高十五天的监禁。更重要的是，在确定污染者需缴纳的罚金时，修订法并未规定限额，进而也就潜在地排除了环境法通常面临的“外部性”问题。在许多国家，包括颁布本修订法前的中国，环境污染的罚金较少，污染之后将罚金作为商业标准成本往往会让企业更有利可图。而中国新颁布的立法则取消了罚金上限，这就意味着污染最终会让企业无利可图。现在，剩下的工作就是中国的政治家们切实贯彻这一威胁了。

第二项立法涉及到了中国在食品和药品中使用濒危物种的问题。长期以来，这都是引起世界其他地区对中国文化不满的问题所在。为了解决这个问题，新颁布的法律规定，在知情情况下，仍然消费使用濒危物种制成的产品的人，最高将面临长达十年的监禁。考虑到中医市场仍然是濒危动物贸易的主要动力之一，这项法律也将对全球的生态系统做出潜在的贡献——不过，前提是政治家有切实的力量去正确施行法律的规定。

当这些法律在实践中的效果还有待观察的同时，我们可以肯定地说，它们是朝正确方向迈出的一步。在过去几年间，部分是由于经济衰退的影响，西方国家对环境法越来越放任自由，同时也有许多保守政府将其视为“繁文缛节”和威胁，为了帮助他们的企业家朋友，甚至减少了这类法律。与此同时，中国，一个过去被视为在环境方面表现不佳的国家，一个其他地区通常鼓励其“加强”和在全球气候变化会谈上发挥自身作用的国家，树立了榜样，供其他发达和发展中国家效仿。

在西方世界，存在着一种强大的意识形态，即人们认为无需系统的改变，也能实现环境改变——只需个人行为和选择就能实现这一目标。如果我们说服足够多的人做出正确的个人选择，我们就能共同保护环境。考虑到许多污染来自旨在创造收益的系统资本主义压力，这种看问题的方式就变得非常可笑——因此，真正能保护环境的做法就是通过强有力的政府行为和立法，对污染者处以严厉的惩罚，让其不得不寻找其他途径进行经营。中国已经先行一步——其他地区是否将以其为榜样呢？

从英文版翻译而来。原文于 5月15, http://annie65j.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-brighter-future-in-china.html

[ 保护环境, 国际社会, 中国的环境法, 中国的政治家们, 中国文化, 发达和发展中国家 ]

The life and death of language

Of all the things that matter to humans, language might be the most important – considerably more so that politics, race, or even money. Language is probably the most inherent part of human culture: it separates us from the animals but it also distinguishes us from each other and helps us form particular communities in particular places. Anyone who has ever found themselves in a foreign country desperately trying to find the one person nearby who can speak English to explain something for us will understand that in times like those we realize how ‘different’ and ‘outside’ we feel when we can’t speak to other humans. Language is also the way in which we convey our emotions and our feelings, positive and negative; and the way in which we express the particular beliefs and knowledge of our cultures.

This is why it is so sad to hear about the number of languages that are dying out in our modern, globalized world. It is estimated that there is currently between 6,000 and 7,000 languages spoken in the world, and that up to 90% of them could be extinct by the year 2100. Many of these languages are only spoken by groups of 10,000 people or less, and as the older speakers pass away and younger members of the group are forced more and more to use one of the major languages of the world in order to communicate and participate in the global economy, detailed knowledge of these smaller languages is disappearing.

We may think this is unimportant – if only 10,000 people speak a language on a planet of 7 billion, perhaps it is not so crucial? Maybe it’s better to have fewer languages, so we can more easily understand each other. Think of the biblical story of the Tower of Babel – apparently all humans used to speak the same language, until God worried that we were trying to build a tower to heaven and decided to give everyone different languages to confuse us and make us into enemies. If we take this approach, getting closer to having a single world language again would make us more likely to cooperate and understand each other as fellow humans.

But I take a different approach. Each language, even the ones only spoken by a handful of people, expresses something culturally and emotionally unique. Each one demonstrates how different groups look at the world in slightly different ways – think about the famous claim that the Inuit of northern Canada have forty different words for various kinds of snow (and the rather less famous fact that the British have almost as many words for the different kinds of rain…). Preserving them and understanding them helps us to conceive of the different ways in which we can see the world, and helps to broaden our mind.

Even small changes in language can express the cultural diversity of human society, which is slowly eroding in the modern age. Think about the big deal currently being made about the difference between Russian and Ukrainian, with Russian speakers trying to secede from Ukraine after their language was briefly outlawed in official contexts. To an outsider, these two languages are almost identical – to someone who is part of Russian or Ukrainian culture, the differences are massive and important, because they say something about the groups and communities they belong to.

In today’s world we are all becoming part of the same cut-throat capitalist world order, with monotone cultures and experiences. In many ways this has benefited us and allowed us to live more comfortable lives. But it would be good to retain at least a little of the traditional life that has served us so well as a species for thousands of years, and it would be equally good to help smaller, poorer communities to keep something that allows them to stand out and feel pride in their own identity. Language is that tradition, and that carrier of identity, and more effort should be put into preserving our different ways of speaking, writing, and understanding the world, before it is too late.

biblical story, carrier of identity, changes in language, convey emotions, cultural diversity, cut-throat capitalist world, dead languages, death of language, extinct languages, feel pride, foreign country, form communities, forty words for snow, global economy, globalized world, human culture, human society, Inuit of northern Canada, knowledge of cultures, live comfortable lives, modern age, monotone cultures, official contexts, politics, race, Russian speakers, single world language, speak English, Tower of Babel, traditional life