Everyone who speaks English as a first language should try to learn a second language.

Reading through the articles with interest, I immediately caught several points. Firstly, your source (1) was about turning human senses into moving images, not 'thought'. Your statement that 'surely we can put images (...) in' is a little optimistic, perhaps mislead by the phrasing of the article. The technology is measuring what is seen by the eye, via the blood supply visual cortex, not the brain's internally generated imagery. Much like putting another screen or a tap between the computer tower and your desk monitor, the images recieved are when the visual cortex is directly stimulated by input from the eye. However, you can't put images into your computer through an intermediate monitor. Scientists are still not even sure when internal imagery is located in the brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In terms of putting visual images into the visual cortex, it would be an interesting development but would better be likened to TV without the involvement of the eye. Certainly not offering the capacity for improved linguistics.Similarly, the existence of source (2) built-in HUD which would be very similar does not in fact equal the capacity to 'download the information directly into your brain'. You could download a text translator and read it. The nuances of phonetics, accent, tonality? That, as my previous source showed, is definitely not available yet.Your statement 'technology needs investors, and people who are interested enough to learn about it, not people with their noses stuck in language books, muttering mispronounced French under their breath until it sinks in.' is not only a little offensively phrased, but rather ridiculous. Imaging technology is not language technology; how do you get linguistic technology without the involvement of linguists? Your sources (4), (5), (6), (7) (8) and (10) are actually all superfluous to the debate at hand. No matter how pretty or good at running the robot, it's not a linguist. Nor does the impressive capacity of powerful algorithms relate to linguistics except to conclude that it will eventually be possible, as my previous source already covered (http://www.dailymail.co.uk......). Finally, the possibility of algorithms taking over so many critical tasks opens up an entirely new vista of debate, one that I have great interest in but which is mostly beyond the scope of this debate. A point, however; if algorithms replace humans in many industries, humans will end up primarily in service industries if not involved in research; their main saleable commodity will be their humanity. Their prospects in such a world will be greatly enhanced by the knowledge of another language; they will be able to compete with technology by offering the comfort of a real human being speaking to the customer in their mother tongue.So, going with (9). The study showed that it is possible to interpret word group, not word. Let's face it; you've seen an MRI scanner, right? (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It's going to be a long time before we have that technology altered such that we're walking around with a miniature virtual translator stuck to our heads.Perhaps the most critical argument in this specific rebuttal is this; if you want to have better programmers with better programming skills as well as overall concentration and general mental capacity to make the technology we need ...well, they'll do vastly better at the task if they learned another language first. The information scientist who learns a second language improves their mathematics, their capacity for logic, their memory and their concentration, and his overall performance in many areas. So not really superfluous or wasteful as has been made out.Literature has barely been covered by our debate, but I would contend that the vast proportion of literature is not in fact in English, and that to learn literature in it's own language is to encompass a wider scope of understanding, not least beause many words are untranslatable into other languages as concepts. To conclude then. English is likely going to cease to be a dominant language over the next few decades. Learning a language is beneficial; conversely, failing to learn a language is deterimental, both economically, and intellectually as we fail to enhance our mental capacity. Learning a foreign language elicits appreciation from the speaker of another language, improves cultural dialogue and the value placed on culture. The mental benefits are phenomenal and undeniable; unless we are proponents of ignorance and diminishing intellectual capacity, we must conclude that the learning of at least one foreign language should be a necessary study and will certainly not contribute to 'information overload'. It will in fact improve the situation. Technology has a long way to go before it can translate spoken language. Even when perfect translators eventually come about, the human mind will still perform better having learned another language, and therefore be better able to create further advances in all areas of science in the process. And let's not forget - learning another language may prove critical in a future economy in which algorithms and robots replace the bulk of human employment.