Our brains have evolved to facilitate speech. Surely, from the first grunts onward, the contents of our skulls have undergone tiny changes to get us where we are today. Just as with the "use of tools" and other memes, we have gone on to refine the our speech and have now arrived at the point where we are so advanced that we can also discuss what is "OK" and what is "not OK" in terms of our use of language.
The thing is, now that we know what evolution is and how it works, we have also reached an evolutionary point where we can manipulate evolution, including evolution of speech. Surely it is as unnatural, therefore, to claim that speech should be permitted to evolve as much as it is unnatural to wish that it should not? I cannot see what damage can be done to spines, teeth and claws, whether canine or human by condoning evo-language or arrested evo-language.
The parallel of the Kennel Club, even though suffocating Bulldogs and staggering German Shepherds are nothing more than atrocities, is a bit myopic. I am not defending the KC but I am sure they did not set out with the intention of aiding the creation of genetically damaged animals. If anything, the KC situation should not be regarded as a metaphor for what might happen if we arrest the arguably too-fast growth and development of badly written language. Moreover, I would imagine that a true passion for language would most likely reside with those who make efforts to defend it’s proper use. I don’t see that a full understanding of text language, for instance, as the prebiotic soup of a flourishing diversity, unless we just want to go back and start again.
How can we expect to maintain a diversity of language if we abandon all that has gone before in favour of those who have so little passion for language that they cannot be bothered with attention to grammatical detail? We are now, BECAUSE of evolution, able to decide whether we abandon our beautiful language’s intricacies in favour a passion/anger mixed with a “can’t be bothered” attitude towards spelling and grammar. We have all seen the impassioned imbecile on forums, haven’t we? The one who has strong views (mostly developed years ago and remain in stasis) but no wit to make them even slightly entertaining in lieu of a point.
Inclusion is all well and good but evolution is about survival of the fittest by natural selection. I am rubbish at spelling and grammar and would never want to be a real grammar nazi, but I do believe that people are more likely to listen to you if you have a good grasp of what to write and how to write it (isn’t that right, Mr Fry!) I am not keen to watch a novice rider get minced on the wall of death, regardless of how impassioned their initial gear changes might sound. Stuff that (into a cocked crash helmet).