Eyak Langauge

What are the arguments on both sides of the debate in promoting a single language?
The arguments in favor of promoting a single language are that the language is dying and needs to be saved; that a culture is being lost and we must do everything in our power to keep this from happening. That if we don't save it a piece of human history is lost forever. The arguments against promoting a single language argue that it is fiscally and realistically impossible to save a language no one wants to speak anymore. The idea behind this argument being that it would cost a great deal of money and that no one wants to speak it anyway, so why bother saving it?
How far should we go to save a dying language? What are the financial and cultural implications?
In my opinion, the extent to which we should go to save a dying language is dependent on the value of the language to modern-day society. The major cultural implication would be the fact that the world lost another culture, but this is inevitably the way humans interact, some cultures become dominant, but all eventually die, and new ones arise. Financialy, the elimination of a lanuguage has nothing but good implications, as there would then be one less language that could result in misunderstandings and mistraslations, which could create negative financial affects.
After reading: Every Teacher is a Language Teacher, what do think of the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day?
The IB endorsing International Mother Language Day could create some problems. One being that if the student's mother language is only spoken by him and no one else, communication would become problematic. The idea that an organization needs to promote the speaking of a langauge should be taken as a sign that the language is dying; if you have to force people to speak it, then what's the point? Also, the banning of English in some of the schools, is in and of it self, an oxymoron, as some people's mother language is English.