There has been a whole hell lot of photography without IS than there has with . Like I tell my kids, we got along just fine without________. It's a perk, enjoy it if you must be it's not needed just wanted.
That would be like someone in 1908 telling their friend "Man has traveled a whole hell lot further on the horse than we ever have in a horseless carriage."
Technology advances as time goes on, and we'd be wise to avail ourselves of it if it's useful. That does not make us soft or lack competence -- it just makes us resourceful.
Flawed analogy. A lens is a lens. You might as well as said a rocket. Your statement alludes to ALL lenses having IS with that type of comparison. True resourcefulness is shooting without IS lol. fwiw, I like it on certain lenses. Lenses I own, actually that would be 3 out of 8. But if any outside of the 100-400 didn't have it, I wouldn't think twice.
You're correct and you can beat up the analogy all you like, but the point is still valid -- we may not need certain tech but it unlocks the ability for us to do more.
And keep in mind that something you file under 'the very basics I need to do the job' may have been similarly deemed to be an unnecessary perk by the photographers that came before you
. Times change and our expectations of technology change.
And FTR, I'm not in the camp of spec-list obsessives that melt down if Canon doesn't keep pace with competitors on feature set items like IBIS, 4K, eye AF detection, etc. -- I just think IS in particular is peachy.
(My count: I have IS on 6 of my 8 lenses personally, only my 40 pancake and venerable 50 f/1.4 USM lack IS.)