Sometimes, the question is asked, "Why should I care about the loss of some indigenous language or culture?" Despite the obvious ignorance and ethno-arrogance of such a question, the question requires an answer. Unfortunately, as Davis points out, can someone who seriously asks such a question actually begin to comprehend an answer?
The solution to the quandary seems to be to create a narrative in which the listener can imagine having unsurpassed indigenous knowledge like the sailing abilities of the polynesian people who have been able to navigate the virtually unnavigable without "modern" tools like chronometers to measure longitude. "Civilized" people, even with "modern" navigation tools such as what Captain Cook would have had, were not as useful as the indigenous knowledge of polynesia. The indigenous knowledge was holistic. It used observations of water, wind, clouds, air, animals, sky and "dead reckoning" to do what others could not. And here's where the answer to the above question should be answered: the indigenous people have had superior "technology" than what was to come from the explorers, and yet the indigenous people were still regarded as inferior.
It is from this inferior/superior perspective that the above question first gets asked, and it is typically asked by someone who, for whatever reason, believes his/her own culture to be inherently superior to any/all others. In the West, it is commonplace to assume that this techno-culture is the pinnacle of human endeavour - which is why some people from this Western culture would ask why it should matter to them if an indigenous tradition from another part of the world disappears.
What a person from a hyper-techno-culture likely thinks is that there is a progression from "primitive" cultures to "advanced" cultures with his/her own culture being "advanced." What Wade Davis tries to enlighten people to is the concept of differential advancement. Basically the idea that there are myriad paths for a culture to take. A culture with geo-spiritual inclinations will not want to destroy a mountain range for the shiny rocks underneath, where as a culture with ego-economical inclinations will virtually stop at nothing to get those shiny rocks from under the mountains. Who is to say, really, which way is the right way? Surely, the answer to the question, "Which path will destroy humanity?" must be considered.
We know, in virtually every culture on the planet, that excessive climate change will lead to loss of habitat and increase in conflict. These issues are directly related to the question, "Why should I care about them?" When we create us vs. them perspectives, and we don't care if destruction happens to "them", then we also ignore what happens to the planet, the eco-system and the biosphere. When we ignore what happens to the earth itself, we lose sustainability. When we lose sustainability, we march along the path to our own destruction.
Unfortunately, many Western, hyper-technological people have lost contact with nature. They believe that nature is a resource to be exploited. When we lose our harmonious regard for nature, we lose our ability to take only what we need. In a sense, our myopia and greed take over. We assemble for conflict and social disparity - the two go hand in hand.
The way to counteract the future of shortage and conflict is to change your own mind about the relevance of indigenous cultures and embrace the idea of multitudinous experiences of the human condition. There is no right way, but some ways are better than others.
If the path that you are on leads to destruction, then change your path!
