However a large part of culture is language, and countries are always trying to maintain their own.
We're also all pretty biased since this discussion occurs in an English-based community. If Chinese were to become the dominant world language, I bet there would be more resistance. The imperial system is a prime example where Americans are a stubborn cultural holdout.
Another concern is that language helps shape one's beliefs. Multilinguals understand that there are certain cultural concepts in native languages that are difficult to translate. Likewise, being a single language developer--whether it's Javascript or Lisp--influences how a developer approaches problems.
I think the reverse also holds. A large part of language is culture. The meaning of a sentence depends on the context and culture is a part of the context.
I believe if all the world started speaking the same language it would quickly diverge into different dialects and (sub)languages.
(disclaimer: English is only my third language)
With respect to this question, I think natural language is a very good analogy. And so is biological evolution. Diversity, exploration of thought, and experimentation with expressiveness are very important aspects of having and using different programming languages.
We had exactly that situation for many years. We'd write our server software in C or C++, and we'd write our client software in C or C++.
A bit later on, and we saw Java become popular. Soon we were writing server-side code in Java, and accessing these servers using client apps written in Java.
Some time after that, we saw people and organizations more in the Microsoft camp doing the same with VB.NET and C#.
It's only with the relatively recent rise of web apps, and the inflexibility brought on by JavaScript being the only viable scripting language supported by the major browsers, that we've seen this issue arise.
Having to use JavaScript on both the client-side and server-side shouldn't be seen as beneficial in any way. It's actually just a very negative side effect of JavaScript being the only option for client-side web development.
But why complicate things with multiple languages if you can use one? Then all developers can understand and edit the codebase.
So this shouldn't be seen as something negative: it's great, actually, that javascript is evolving in this way. It will allow for more flexibility: you can write your server software in clojurescript, your client software in coffeescript, and still share some common libraries for functions you need to call on both client and server.
I cannot understand why some developers fail to understand that we need different tools optimized for different types of tasks.
It is like they are afraid of learning.
I also find it interesting that most people on the thread seemed to have missed the important difference between having a shared language and having only one language!
As an English-speaking U.S. citizen who has studied some German and Russian but is fluent in only English, I can say that I am seriously limited by my ignorance of other languages.
As a programmer who programs in several different languages, I am perplexed that people dream of The One True Language.
Today I am likely to write some R, bash, SQL, awk, in addition to javascript. I don't believe that fear of new languages leads people to imagine I'd be better off using Javascript in all these contexts or that Javascript would be better off if it added the features of all these other languages.
Hence the need to know several languages and use the right one for the task at hand.
JavaScript fills me with joy because it is so unlike these languages and I get to watch people grow when they stop kicking and screaming and learn it. JavaScript doesn't have any super unique features or anything; it's just so not Java while frequently being suddenly essential to people who think in Java.