For Academia, yes. All of the scientific articles are written in that language.

The youngest generations are hugely influenced by Youtube and the internet, and many speak English more fluently than their own legacy local language.

This is a great thing for humanity. A common language will ease the flow of ideas and simplify commerce.

Keep in mind that what you are preemptively celebrating will cause enormous cultural strife worldwide. People and societies are usually not welcoming of extreme cultural assimilation of this kind.

On the internet sometimes people joke about how strongly France is culturally fighting the English language, but if the Anglicisation trend continues many countries could end up facing dangerous backlashes.

What do you mean 'will cause' - it has already happened.

Almost all children learn English in Government primary school in Europe, and quite a lot study at private schools with the entire curriculum in that language. The legacy local language is basically treated as a secondary language, something to use for gossip and low-level transactions with local businesses (bars, supermarkets, plumbers).

Many Governments offer services in both languages: paying taxes, driver licensing, etc.

What is the point of becoming highly fluent in a legacy local language, even for someone born in that country - to write books and articles that no one (in a global context) will ever read? Fluency in English delivers so much more, has many more learning resources available, and is a much better investment of school time.

In which countries do you see that?

And destroy a great deal of culture. No thanks.

Who cares about the culture? The in efficiency due to the lack of a common language is large, standardizing on a language would be an amazing boost to productivity and pushing humanity forward.

Culture is not language, it is the people. Why do people defend language, which can be recorded, yet are silent on the significantly below-replacement fertility rates of some European populations, and the high levels of immigration that will eventually replace the native 'cultures'?

> Culture is not language, it is the people.

No, culture is not people, it is the shared behaviors and values of the people; use of a particular language is part of that. Immigration may threaten that (since the immigrants do bring their own culture), but immigrants often assimilate into the host culture, or at least adopt large portions of it.

Culture is not genetic heritage.