Ease of communication is a doubtful advantage
The first part of the statement can be easily argued out; but the second part requires some consideration. It is partially true and partially false.
The first part says that ease of communication is of doubtful advantage. This is not so. Communication involves mechanical movement as well as verbal communication. Mechanical communication involving movement may fall under three broad categories namely, land, sea and air. In all these there had been phenomenal advancement in the last two centuries. Progress has been by leaps and bounds. The steam and the railcar brought distant places much nearer. This was followed by the motor car with its various shapes and sizes. It has a signal advantage over the railway in that a motor car is very convenient for going anywhere. Whereas a train only goes to certain towns. Wright brothers with their invention opened up a new era in air travel. Today we are entering an age of supersonic planes and rockets where two places on earth will not be distant. Thus sea travel, perhaps the oldest of the three, has been left behind for faster modes of travel.
As they bring different people together for business and fun, there is a mingling of culture and no culture can be said to be in its virginity today. This brings about better understanding among different peoples of the world. There is more appreciation today of different cultures than it was a few decades ago.
Looking into verbal communication the spoken word and the written word call our attention. The spoken word is heard not only from person to person but through the radio, tape recorders, cinema and the television. Books, magazines and newspaper represent the written word. the literature in any language is a reflection of a particular culture and as such when people read and hear from another they partake the beauties of the other culture. Sometimes they have a devastating effect as in the case of yellow culture and horror comics. But that is only far and few between. So case of communication had brought about the spread of culture and to some extent international understanding.
The second part of the statement, ‘it might kill a culture worthy of preservation’. No culture can be safe against the onslaught of time unless it has the seeds of change in itself. After all culture represents the way life lived, and no static culture can hope to survive. The readiness with which a culture could change shows its dynamism. Nothing can illustrate this better than comparing Japan and African countries. Both have come under the influence of the West. Keeping its basic character intact Japan could readily absorb the good from the West. But many of the African countries though they were ruled by the Europeans could not absorb the Western culture as fast as Japan did and so the difference between the said two cultures are obvious.
Despite case of communication good things in a culture can be preserved. It is up to the people to preserve it. In this jet age people cannot sweat by the bullock cart which may be there but all too soon it would meet with a slow death as it has happened with the Maories and Red Indians.
In the fabric of culture the material may remain the same though the dyes and designs may change. But if the people were blind to this basic fact, naturally, their culture will suffer. So the blame must be on the people rather than on communication.
