The problem with photographers is that they (we) are not necessarily normal.
Normal person: "What a wonderful sunset!"
Photographer without a camera: "What a wonderful sunset, and I left the camera home, aarrgghh". That will ruin the delight of the sunset, obviously.
Photographer with a camera: "What a wonderful sunset. Luckily I have the camera with me and I can make an attempt to catch its magic. Done! And oh, what a wonderful sunset!".
End result: the picture of the sunset might not be that great, and not as great as the experience of being there, but having the camera prevented the thought of not enjoying the moment for not having a camera, and so allowed us to actually enjoy the moment!
Would you have forgiven to yourself not having taken pictures of your children?
Seen it in another way: having the camera with you on Machu Picchu will allow you to actually prevent the photographer in you from not enjoying the moment because you don't have a camera with you.
It's not the worst illness. Some people must get insulin every day, and they must carry the necessary for it. We must carry a camera to feel well and enjoy life
For me the experience of being there is not of consequence, as only the interpretation of the scene that matters is visual capture of the moment. You often see people taking pictures during carnivals and other such events, which have great atmosphere, sound and human interaction. However, from a photographic point of view, particularly in black and white, these scenes are far too complicated and do not relate to a final visual image. You have to ignore all senses that are not visual.