I was wondering if this was a serious post. Some thoughts:
1. High(er) ISO settings that produce acceptable images mean that the photographer can confidently cover situations where he or she needs more light, and can't use a flash set up.
2. Any improvement that allows a photographer to make an acceptable image or work more creatively is truly an "improvement."
3. The Canon 1DS MKIII is not noisy at ISO 1600 properly exposed and once you run it through a properly configured noise reduction algorithm. Moving to Nikon because the high ISO noise is cleaner is ridiculous, simply because Nikon uses more aggressive in camera noise reduction (Unless you're shooting jpgs in a fast moving environment, such as journalism
4. If you don't need high ISO capabilities surely that doesn't mean others can't and don't really benefit from it. I was looking at my mom and dad's wedding pictures from 1953 a while ago, and the photography was professional and clean. However, the guy had to use a flash, and he did the very best he could, but you could see shadows on walls (down angled as much as he could, and they were very unobtrusive), black backgrounds in many photos, and by today's standards, unacceptable light fall off around the perimeters.
5. Anything that allows photographers to increase their creativity and stretch their abilities, I would think, is a good thing. At least the history of art and photography is on my side.