If I had the choice between saving just one (decent quality) human life and keeping an endangered language alive for another generation, I would sacrifice the language to save the human.
Everyone who is keeping an endangered language alive is, during the time they spend doing that, not saving human lives. Would you say that they are sacrificing humans to save the language? In those words it sounds like a bad thing, but look past the words and is it, really?
Some make direct efforts to save lives. Others try to make a world fit for those lives to be lived in.
How far do you take this? What else would you have everyone sacrifice to saving lives?
I am currently attending the Early Music Festival in Utrecht, 10 days of concerts of music at least 400 years old. Is everyone involved in this event — the performers whose whole career is in music, the audiences who are devoting their time to doing this and not something else, and all the people organizing it — engaging in dereliction of duty?
Everyone who is keeping an endangered language alive is, during the time they spend doing that, not saving human lives. Would you say that they are sacrificing humans to save the language? In those words it sounds like a bad thing, but look past the words and is it, really?
Some make direct efforts to save lives. Others try to make a world fit for those lives to be lived in.
In my opinion, yes. That is why I posted the question.
How far do you take this? What else would you have everyone sacrifice to saving lives?
I am currently attending the Early Music Festival in Utrecht, 10 days of concerts of music at least 400 years old. Is everyone involved in this event — the performers whose whole career is in music, the audiences who are devoting their time to doing this and not something else, and all the people organizing it — engaging in dereliction of duty?