[Eric]

Gonfler brings up several interesting points:

First, that languages and dialects are part of your heritage. But if you have 170, this presents quite a problem for those wishing to preserve them at a level that they remain a living part of that heritage.

So, like a juggler, you maybe can't keep all 170 balls in the air, but can at least keep some of them moving.

The Scylla and Charybdis of centralism and regionalism are true dangers. If you err on the one side, you will get an anodyne national "Esperanto", with no one really feeling it is their mother tongue. Err on the other, and you will have 170 squabbling factions, all claiming their language or dialect deserves proportionally to be paid most attention and supported with most state funding.

Major international languages should be learnt. This is the Achilles' Heel, to use yet another metaphor, of Britain and the United States. As "everybody" speaks English internationally, very few British and American people can be bothered to learn any foreign language. They force all international conversations to be conducted on their terms. Is this not language imperialism?