Yes "we" want. And "we" don't understand what is e.g. this about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Python_software#Python...
There's CPython, the main Python interpreter. It's quite traditional in architecture, and is written in a very portable subset of C.
It's the Python implementation that pretty much all Python developers and users happily and successfully use.
Then there are the experimental or niche Python implementations. They augment very specific and isolated use cases, instead of splintering and delaying the adoption of the language like the many failed partial Perl 6 implementations did.
It should be evident that the Python approach is better than the Perl approach. We've been able to use Python 3 in production for many years now, while Perl 6 still isn't usable.
You've got MoarVM, which is just like CPython But if you want a different backend - great! Don't have to wait for MoarVM - the folks at MoarVM didn't wait for Parrot to solve their problems (or they'd still be waiting). For example, use JVM, just like Jython.
This is a stark difference to the situation of Perl 5, where there is only one interpreter, and there's little, if any chance of another. There's no Perl 5 language specification (as there is in Perl 6), except the Perl 5 interpreter. Only Perl 5 can parse Perl 5.
Perl 6 got so many things right, it's phenomenal.
Getting things right takes time, and it only happened because so many things went wrong.
This historical revisionism continues to be tiresome.
I'm historian of Perl 6, a bit :-). http://www.slideshare.net/michaljurosz1/perl-family-15-years...
Open source, volunteers, real life, ecosystem, not easy to implement so feature rich language, ... this wasn't planned.