Absolutely, but at the same time it depends on what you value in a language. That is kind of what this whole conversation is about, after all. English is garbage from any compative measure of language quality, its grammar is irrational, it has thousands of edge cases, it does not even use the entire range of human auditory sounds. But that constitutes a linguists evaluation of it - for probably 99.9999% of human beings, language is there to facilitate communication, in which case all the grammar breaks and eccentricities go out the window for the singular overriding and essential value of - do you and the other person speak the same language?

That is why English is so important now, since about half the world knows it, and the difference between knowing it or not could be the difference between perpetual poverty and improving standards of living.

In the same way, the cultural aspect cannot be considered relevant as much as the grammar cannot be, because the importance of having a language to communicate is overwhelming. There will always be people that like languages and learn them, language diversity will never die, but I also would wonder how you could ever hope to replace English with something better. It is the kind of thing that logically should seem obvious - a university department of smart people, or a global consortium, could come together and try to architect a language optimized for everyone, that has firm grammar rules and uses all the auditory notes of the human voice range, and prioritizes making common words short and such. But once you make that language, how do you teach it to the world? And in between, are you proposing people learn English and Earthish at the same time?