The words in the title are way too extreme.
But it is with such intense language that we are coming to discuss our requirements. There are several activities and experiences which we have collectively deemed part of the full life experience in our society. These include both activities that we "should" do and those that exclude us not to do. In both cases, we are considered personally responsible for indicating that we care about living a good life and want to be a part of society, even though they are also luxuries.
Not all requirements will hurt us when missed. However, people will insist that we "should" do them to live fulfilled lives; if we don't, we're personally choosing not to become our best selves and we are therefore lesser parts of society. One of these that I hear a lot is travel.
"Everyone should travel." "All young people should experience another country." "Travel will shape your life." Maybe these phrases are true; travel is wonderful. However, the weight that we put on them, acting as if those who choose not to travel are uncultured, homely, and unfulfilled, tends to make it seem like travel is a choice that people are required to choose to have lived full lives. But as much as people insist that anyone can travel cheaply, travel is not free. Travel is a luxury. It is extremely expensive, even if you're not on a first-class flight to a luxurious European city. It requires the ability to take an extended amount of time off of work. Not everyone can travel; are those who cannot truly make the choice to live untrue, empty lives? Not at all. But we frame this as both a choice, which it often is not and as almost morally better.
But other forces are significantly stronger. As has been heavily discussed, it is becoming increasingly different to function in this society without an iPhone. If one cannot be a part of apps such as GroupMe or Snapchat or iMessage or FaceTime, they can often easily miss out on the groups we form in the extremely important space we call cyberspace. Since these spaces are getting increasingly vital to share ideas, form relationships, and spread the word about opportunities, those without iPhones may find themselves pushed to the side of a community. They are considered hard to accommodate and deviant. Yet iPhones are expensive.
While both of these ideas are problems that are only really important in a ridiculously luxurious society, and they are relatively small, it is worth paying attention to their effects on those in the luxurious society who cannot afford its luxuries. Are they still considered full members of the society? Do we reference them as inferior in their personal choices?
Most importantly, as we come to expect people to spend their free time in very privileged, yet moralistically-described ways, and rely heavily on expensive technologies, are we allowing lower-income people to remain a part of the communities we form?
