Sac: biotech indymedia!

good idea biotech indymedia. let's do it.

We can either increase the yields and/or nutrition of foodstuffs.

Or let the poor starve to death so that current yields are satisfactory.

Fortunately, the choice isn't yours. You'll be part of the whining background noise as policy develops from reason and science.

It's not a homogeneous system. The governments/economies of those countries where people starve are different from most of those that don't.

There are no countries independent of global capitalism. Nowhere on earth is free of its cancer.

See if you notice any trends between the left side (least corrupt) and the right side (most corrupt).

Now, guess which side of the chart has leaders with the greatest net worth (and the greatest concentration of this wealth held in secret bank accounts).

Finally, all studies show that a poor country can improve the standard of living of its citizens by one tried-and-true method: foreign direct investment. Examples: Taiwan, South Korea, and even China over the past few years.

Why don't foreign firms invest in these corrupt countries on the right-side of the chart, so that the standard of living of it's people can be improved? Duh.

Choice of government and economic system is why, after starting out at about the same level mid-century, South Korea enjoys per capita income 20x greater than the North Koreans. It's not a coincidence.

What are you ranting about? This article has to do with genetic engineeing and related biotech and application issues, including regulation, testing, precautionary measures, integration of crops, short and long term side effects on environment, ect.

China and S. Korea development in the past 30~50 years have almost nothing to do with these issues.

There are plenty of capitalist countries that have starvation. That chart above shows it. Indonesia, Guatemala (where the US helped enforce capitalism), Venezuela, Philippines, Kenya, etc. Those aren't monarchies. They are much more capitalist than the US, Canada and W. Europe even, because they don't have substantial social security or welfare programs that right-wing radio callers constantly call 'socialist'.

cp,
The chart above shows the degree of perceived corruption of each country. I disagree with you on your point of those corrupt countries being capitalist. A capitalist country is one in which investors can put money into a corporation and know that the rule of law will protect their investment from corrupt managers, worker, or bureaucrats. Capitalism, to be successful, requires a very advanced system of law. The chart shows (more or less) that the countries on the left have such a system. Those on the right do not.

Abraham,
Please elaborate on your point that "It now looks like the protein interactions is very critical" and please provide some examples where capitalist pharma/agricultural companies are using starving people as guinea pigs. In fact, the Zambian government has recently starved its own citizens (a food crisis threatens more than 14 million people in six countries in southern Africa, the result of drought, floods and bad policies) by refusing the import of GMO corn that you and I eat all the time.

Here are some Sacbee and Chronicle articles from today.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6887446p-7837119c.html
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6887445p-7837117c.html
Article about Monsanto oppressing a farmer in Canada
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/20/ED111049.DTL
These 'scientists', who are citing themselves as authorities, didn't bother to consult the other side but are representing their position for them.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/20/ED177402.DTL
I like this quote - it points out that our best strategic advantage in being in Sacramento as protesters is to have the police do our task for us, making a big impact by shutting down various streets and following little groups of protesters around with excessive numbers: ""This is a small downtown in an old city, with very short blocks," Brunelle said. "Parking will be restricted, and congestion could be terrible. We're trying to get the word out that people should allow extra time to get to work. If you can take the bus in, you should do it. If your bosses allow you to telecommute from home, take them up on it."

The CHP is circulating a sheet of safety tips for coping with the demonstrations. Among the tips: Report suspicious packages. Lock non-public doors. Keep cell phones charged. Don't go out alone. Close window blinds. Avoid isolated corridors.

"

To 'truthdetector': you are using a rather convoluted definition of capitalism. If you are going to say that Indonesia, Thailand, Guatemala, Venezuela etc. are not capitalist, and that only the set including only 'successful' European countries are, you are really dodging the issue. Indonesia certainly isn't communist, and when you see 'anticapitalist' protesters, they are criticizing the 'free market from above' processes that have turned places like Indonesia into such poverty stricken countries.
The reason that the US and Canada are so much more wealthy than Mexico, despite essentially identical early histories, is that the labor movement was much more successful in winning things like the 8 hour day and social security which allowed a large middle class to grow, while in Mexico they failed.
If you look at the countries in S. America and Asia that have followed the advice of capitalist institutions like the WTO and NAFTA, they have all become increasingly poorer, despite the unquestioned wisdom that property rights and rule of law are all that is necessary for capitalist prosperity to bloom.
If you look at the countries in Asia that have become wealthy - S. Korea, Japan and Singapore & Taiwan, the thing that these nations have in common was strong protectionism of essential industries during their development. Countries that followed the advice of the World Bank and IMF have failed without exception.

--Incidentally, if you support the notion of rule of law and property rights, it follows that large portions of the U.S. really belong to dozens of independent indian nations that laid claim to this land before the US came and took it away in an extralegal fashion, and violated the constitution's statement that treaties are the highest law of the land.

>investors can put money into a corporation and know that the rule of law will protect their investment from corrupt managers

You don't read the business section, do you?

The scientific world has recently realized genomics alone is not adequate. The field of proteomics is exploding. The protein interactions somehow play a very important role in turning ON or OFF of certain gene. In other words, even if one can successfully clone an animal 100% genetically, it doesn't guarantee the cloned animals will all display same characteristics and behavior. How the involved proteins interact with one another can trigger or inhibit specific processes.

Look up proteomics as well as genomics if you want further details of what their differences are.

Abraham,
I have an advanced degree in biological systems/genetic engineering. I do transgenic GE all the time. I just wanted to see what you would say :-)

Fortunately, the Enron-like cases are the exception rather than the rule. Let's hope these thieves all do jail time and pay fines. And let's hope that adequate new rules are instituted to protect investors. And make the rule of law even stronger.

That's why the USA doesn't score a perfect 10...

In those countries on the right-side of the scale, this type of behavior is not the exception.

In particular, the butthead "science and reason" dolt who believes that the political resistance to GM crops is just "whining in the background" despite the fact that the US is now declaring an international trade war against the entire European Union, the opposition to GM is so strong. The idiot claiming that resistance is "whining in the background" has his head in his ass and needs to pull his nose out of the science textbook long enough to read a newspaper.

The reason for opposition of GM crops could'nt be clearer: the priorities driving the research, development, and implementation of the crops are completely bad and corrupt. It is impossible to have a sane technological improvement to the world's food supply when the driving force behind all aspects of the attempt, top-to-bottom, is the profit margin of Monsanto Corporation.

Did all of you see the report from the Canadian Ministry examining food imports? The actual nutrient value of American oranges has gone down, simply because traditional breeding techniques for the orange crops in the US - old school GM - reflect market values. Oranges are bred to be large and pretty. However, they are not bred for nutritional value!

Take the same corrupt values, and apply it with modern GM to changes to the global food supply. Lord save us.

Bring out the boogeyman Monsanto.

Name one company in the business of distributing seeds that is not in it for making profit. The way to avoid commoditization of the business is to improve the product -- more nutrition and/or higher yield.

Simple as that.

You complain about the nutritional value of the oranges the US exports to Canada. Those orange strains are refined through TRADITIONAL BREEDING! There are no GMO oranges on the market.

You can't have it both ways.

That's like saying: "the internal combustion engine spews pollutants into the environment. This is why research into fuel cell technology must stop!"

Another kid on this forum, too clever by half.

And pull your nose out of that science textbook long enough to read a newspaper. If you had done that, Mr. "Advanced Degree In Science" (I got one of those things too, so fucking what) then you would'nt have needed me to tell you about traditionally bred oranges being bred according to market values and becoming measurably, as a result, larger, prettier, and less nutritious.

(And if you read a newspaper instead of that musty ol' technical paper you would also be aware that Monsanto Corporation is The Boogeyman and Anne Veneman is the Secretary from Monsanto Corporation. You would also have been aware of the uh major international trade war now declared by Monsanto/Bush against the Entire European Union because of "whining in the background". If there is one thing I despise, it is techie nerds attempting to comment on the real world while having complete ignorance of it.)

I'm a techie, too. Half Truth and I don't share the same view (most of the time so far).

I already stated that I agreed with Nessie that profits should never rise above the safety of people, environment and the whole works. U.S. government's stand is not prudent in my view. Not enough study and regulations are in place, especially the scientific community have come to realized the current scientific understanding on genetic engineering and consequences are inadequate....

Be cool then make your point.

Truthdetector is expressing the epitome of corporate technological ignorance/arrogance, from the perspective of that most sheltered and unware figure: the technical worker.

I disagree with you, Abraham, that the issue is simply an issue of "further study being required". That is a namby pamby academic waffle non-response. I do note however your indicating the problems associated with a "capitalist system". Instead of "further study is required" I suggest you consider the factual and to-the-point "the core values and priorities of the power behind the GM crops are wholly corrupt and devoted to profits and extreme wealth for an extraordinarily rich and elite few."

As an advanced technical degree holder, I oppose completely GM crops done expressly to make the investors and shareholders of Monsanto Corporation richer and richer. I completely oppose that political power, because that power, the power behind the research, development, implementation, and sales - yes, sales - of the crop "product", is a power willing to exploit and waste the earth, its ecosystems, and human populations in order to make a filthy rich elite investor class filthier and richer.

With that power behind the GM crops, in the end, no good will come of the GM crops. Things will get worse. We've watched it happen all across agriculture, as the corporations comprising "Big Agribusiness" become more and more world-dominant political players engaged in more exploitative, more ruinous, more cynical activities with every passing day. The GM Frankencrops are just a quantum-leap development of Big Agribusiness to, in the end, exploit more ruthlessly.

Starvation in the thrid world is preferable to the 'Frankenfoods' (boy, isn't THAT a loaded term, rahter like kike and nigger, designed to pull up an instinctive reaction...) actually being consumed. Is that an accurate summation?

Your arguement feeds nobody. But that's not the point, is it?

There have been HOW MANY studies about the potential harmful effects? And HOW MANY harmful effects have been found?

"Well, it needs more study before we're sure it's safe" -

Yet starvation is 100% fatal if continued long enough. But this stuff MIGHT, MAYBE, POSSIBLY (ignoring the massive numbers of tests that have been done to date and found NOTHING) POTENTIALLY be harmful. Maybe. Though we've no proof. Or even suspicions. (Rather, plenty of suspicion, but no evidence of harmful effects. But dammit, there must be SOME, SOMEWHERE, BECAUSE WE __BELIEVE!!!__ there must be...) So we've got to run even more tests, or invent new ways, because surely there MUST be something bad about these "Frankenfoods".

So we shouldn't distribute any of the GM seed. Anywhere.

In the mean time, the Third World starves.

But then again, you can point at that as just how uncaring the US aid agencies are - because if we REALLY cared, we'd send them crap that would require more pesticides, more fertilizers, and have fewer nutrients, not to mention a lower yeild per plant.

Much better all around, don't you think? On the one hand, you can bash the US for not providing aid to starving countries, on the other, you can bash companies who provide GM seed stock. On the third hand, you can bash the companies who sell fertilizer and pesticides, and on the fourth hand, you can bemoan the increased use of pesticides and the fertilizer runoff.

Gee. Four hands.

Must be those damn GM foods...

Large numbers of the starving third world countries actually are in a state of national food surplus. Much of the problem in those nations has to do with autocratic governments and political corruption. The starvation issue as you present it is completely simplified and dumbed down. Many of these nations (for example, Ethiopa) could adequately feed their entire populations if it were not for the corrupt governments in question.

(Not to mention cash crops, which starve locals while making corrupt government leaders richer.)

Frankencrops is a fine term! Your comment regarding starvation is at least partially insipid in that a major subset of the nations you indicate are in a food surplus, and will not be assisted by GM crops in reducing starvation.

If you want to do that, you might redirect the aid to those nations so that they can purchase the means of development without resorting to turning so much of their arable land into export-only pineapple, banana, coffee, and sugar plantations run by a collusion of corrupt government locals and US corporate bosses. The local people could grow staple crops on all that land ...

But instead, you just want to misconstrue the starvation issue to create a veneer of "nobility" for what is in reality simply another vast corporate agribusiness exploitation bid.

And since when does Monsanto Corporation and the Bush administration have the right to force people to grow and consume crops they don't want? That is the very essence of the WTO complaint that Zoellick initiated today ... what right do you have to demand that European people grow and eat crops they don't want? That is obnoxious!

I have not heard that GM crops solve world hunger. Which nation or corporation has made such a claim? GM crops are generally designed around specific phenotype and genotype believing that such charateristics would provide the preferred results generally in terms of yield productivity, marketability, etc. However, a sharp decrease in population diversity is often a serious concern. I am not aware any scientist or coporation has come out and gives the "Sure Thing Guarantee".

So you don't need detaied support for "arguments" when you are doing them in public. That is why Bush is not rotting in jail for lying to the world about WMD/Iraq. You see, over 20% of Americans still think Hussein *used* WMD in this last war ...

The Bush administration is invoking the "Great Starvation of the Poor" while launching a WTO suit against the European Union. This is vacuous at best and profoundly dishonest at worse. The naked agenda behind the thin veneer is to force the EU to force the European nations to grow and consume crops that the populations of those countries do not want at all. The motivation for this effort is solely based on the operating profit margins of Monsanto Corporation and its ilk. You see? The starvation issue is very complex and GM crops are not some sort of silver bullet. Furthermore, the major target market that is under legal attack by the Bush administration is in an area which is not starving (Europe). But, because the Bush administration has rhetorically linked "starvation" and "GM crops" in its public statements, you get these dolts running around demanding that Monsanto Corporation just wants to feed the humble poor of the world, and has the perfect panacea for the starvation problem, if only these damned alarmists and Luddites would just shut up ....

(And as an advanced technical degree holder myself, no Luddite, I deeply oppose the implementation of GM crops in general and specifically through the bully's tool called "World Trade Organization" because I have seen what the values, priorities, and motives of big corporate agribusiness bring in other contexts. This is not Luddite alarmism, this is an opposition based on something many science nerds never acquire: the information available from a daily regular reading of several newspapers, along with numerous non-fictional writing and reports on public affairs matters and policy matters. Furthermore, you must always be aware that corporate science workers will side with the corporate agenda under a veneer of neutral technical authority ...)

Bush and his administration are filled with thugs and criminals. I personally believe (and hope) the EU would not kowtow to Bush on GM crops matter.

Bush is having to send Zoellick to the WTO in an attempt to force the European nations to allow Monsanto corporation to make profits there, whether the people and governments of the European nations want GM crops or not.

The trade war is going public, very public.

(If you have'nt noticed, the trade war between former allies of the US in Europe/elsewhere and the US has escalated immensely since the UNSC/Iraq collapse - Bush's bellicosity and the naked imperialism have been so antagonizing that former allies are now engaging in escalating trade war with the US. The relationships are very badly damaged.)

That's why I am so anti-Bush. The ring-winged picked the "right guy" to do all their dirty work. Bush is so shallow that he either doesn't know or doesn't care the consequences of any of his actions.

I believe he only understands "profits" and "fraternizing" with the rich and powerful to promote and enrich himself and his family.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/20/ED177402.DTL

using the same rhetorical technique of above comments, and in the op-ed in the Chronicle, I too am a few months short of a 5 yr advanced degree at Berkeley and I work in a genetic sequencing lab among other things.
The scientists in this article are setting up a strawman argument by portraying every protester as a total boob stumbling around thinking that food irradiation involves putting radiation in food etc. Several members of my lab plus myself were at WTO in Seattle, there will be a number of people from UC Davis among the protesters, and the original controversial study bringing pollen drift from transgenic corn into question was done at Berkeley.
In other words, there is no 'science and reason' side vs. the postmodern irrational protester side, despite what Monsanto and company would like to have you think.
Personally, I think the problem comes down to the fact that there are very few products that can be sold from biotech companies. It is a problem of overproduction - society produces more than there naturally are buyers for, so to keep the economy going, we have to constantly produce new products and services that people will want, or make things disposable. For instance, if your computer that you are reading this on were to work for 15 years, then computer manufacturers would go broke - so instead we have planned obsolence.
With computer companies, it is feasible to envision a new piece of software, or device, and to plan and develop it within a few years. In biotech, many companies work for years and years without producing a new drug, and often sellable products are discovered as an accident. My relative worked as a tech at ICOS in Washington on multiple sclerosis, and they never discovered a cure, but a drug turned out to have a side effect of behaving like viagra, so now they finally have a product to sell. Many biotech companies just go bankrupt. A doctor friend says that there are already drugs for almost every illness except things like cancer, and most new drugs just replicate old drugs.
In agriculture, we already have really good breeds of animals and plants, but that would leave nothing for the companies to really sell, because people are already really efficient at producing the old breeds and so there is no profit potential. You remember economics 101 about how profit always goes to zero over the long term,a nd profit is typically only possible in new industries before supply and demand equalize.
The world doesn't suffer from a lack of agricultural production at this time, with the exception of fisheries.

The battle with the EU is not one to "force the European nations to grow and consume crops that the populations of those countries do not want at all". It's a battle for the right to sell the goods. If nobody buys them, then so be it.

Remember the banana war a few years ago? Same thing.

If the EU doesn't like the rules, then they should drop out of WTO.

to protect the people under their care from perceived external threats.

Of course, it is heretical to suggest such a thing in America - that a government body has a right to protect the governed people - EVEN IF IT (GASP) NEGATIVELY IMPACTS A BUSINESS SOMEWHERE ON PLANET EARTH - but it is true.

As an advanced science degree holder, and 1999 WTO-Seattle "attendee", I am opposed to the general acceptance of GM crops for a number of reasons. The first and foremost of these reasons lies right before all our eyes: to serve Monsanto Corporation, the Bush administration is in essence attempting to get the WTO (the same one I protested in Seattle) to overturn the sovereign right of a democratic foreign governing body to make decisions for its people.

There is no "right" for Monsanto Corporation to sell its products in lands governed by a foreign regime in which Monsanto and its Frankencrops are unwelcome.

At such time in the future, when the political power motivating the research, development, implementation, and distribution of GM crops is not simply yet another face of Big Corporate Agribusiness out for its latest gluttonous profit-rape, regardless of any consequences, I'll support the GM Frankencrops. However, given the character of Big Corporate Agribusiness, as it has demonstrated numerous times, and the deplorable character of the Bush administration, I do not trust them to pursue GM crops with any motive other than the personal greed motive, and I am aware of too many examples of how that motive produces bad consequences for people.

And one other thing: fuck the World Trade Organization! There will be no peace in globalization until it has a moral (and ecological) foundation based on more than the personal greed of an elite, surreally wealthy US investor superclass.

The Bush administration attempt to use the WTO to force Europeans to accept Frankencrops is all about undermining democracy for the profit of Monsanto Corporation.

Despite the asinine theocratic fanaticism surrounding this mythical "inherent right to 'free' trade", government bodies have a right to SAY NO to corporations.

The Bush administration has no right attempting to force "free market" rules onto foreign governments.

(And as far as Europe "dropping out of the WTO" is concerned the EU currently has a WTO lawsuit going against the US and the Bush administration as well. Bush is only a "free market" fanatic when it suits his corporate cronies.)

I agree that Bush's pandering to steel workers (and their unions) by raising tariffs was disgusting.

I remember David Letterman made a joke before Bush was selected. He said something like "Let's wait and see how Bush will run this nation into the ground..." Back then, it was funny. Now it's not any more. Bush is pushing the whole world deep into a hell hole.

Half Truth, I am surprise to hear such a comment from someone claiming to have a degree in biotech. Are you saying steel will mutate and multiply on its own and kill off the rest of the steel population or because of lack of bio-diversity, steel can be extinct due to some plant disease?

Found another Monsanto news.

Monsanto Sends
Seed-Saving Farmer To Prison
Organic Consumers Association
From Agribusiness Examiner #246
6-19-3
http://www.rense.com/general38/saver.htm

PETER SHINKLE, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH -- A farmer opposed to Monsanto Co.'s genetic seed licensing practices was sentenced pMay 7] in federal court at St. Louis to eight months in prison for lying about a truckload of cotton seed he hid for a friend.

Kem Ralph, 47, of Covington, Tenn., also admitted burning a truckload of seed, in defiance of a court order, to keep Monsanto from using it as evidence in a lawsuit against him.

The prison term for conspiracy to commit fraud is believed to be the first criminal prosecution linked to Monsanto's crackdown on farmers it claims are violating agreements on use of the genetically modified seeds.

Ralph pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on February 21 of lying in a sworn statement in the civil case.

At issue is seed-saving, the age-old agricultural practice of keeping seed from one crop to plant another. Monsanto's licensing agreement forbids it, a policy that has drawn bitter opposition from some farmers.

In court Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Webber ordered Ralph to serve the prison time and to repay Monsanto $165,649 for about 41 tons of genetically engineered cotton and soybean seed he was found to have saved in violation of the agreement.

Monsanto says it has filed 73 civil lawsuits against farmers in the past five years over this issue.

Officials of the company, based in Creve Coeur, hoped that Ralph's case would send a stern message. Monsanto has distributed information about it and about the civil litigation as a warning.

Before Ralph's sentencing Wednesday, a Monsanto official told Judge Webber that other farmers would closely watch the outcome.

"Their behavior will be set according to the results here today," said Scott Baucum, an intellectual property protection manager for Monsanto.

The ruddy-faced Ralph appeared in court in blue jeans and a plaid shirt. He made no comment during or after the hearing. His attorneys have asked him to hold his peace because his civil case with Monsanto --- in which he has already been ordered to pay more than $1.7 million to the agribusiness giant --- is still not over.

But Ralph has been outspoken about his feelings. He said in a deposition in

2000 that opposition to Monsanto led to his decision to burn the bags of seed.

"Me and my brother talked about how rotten and lowdown Monsanto is. We're tired of being pushed around by Monsanto," he said then. "We are being pushed around and drug down a road like a bunch of dogs. And we decided we'd burn them."

Monsanto's new seeds have won widespread acceptance among American farmers. An example is genetically modified soybean seeds, which are designed to work with Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.

The seeds, which won government approval in 1994, are expected to account for 80% of the 73 million acres of soybeans planted in 2002 and 2003, the Department of Agriculture says.

Monsanto and its supporters say its fees are justified so the company can recoup costs and pay for future research.

Farmers who refuse to pay the fees obtain an unfair advantage over others, Monsanto says.

Some critics contend that the company's pricing is excessive and too tough on farmers.

"Farmers were always able to compete by saving seed. It's really a question of the corporate profit - that's what's being protected. If you can't save seed, you've got to buy it," said Lou Leonatti, an attorney from Mexico, Missouri, who represents Ralph in his civil case.

People from Tipton County, near Ralph's home, wrote to tell Judge Webber that farmers there had suffered some hard years.

Paul D'Agrossa, attorney for Ralph in the criminal case, argued for probation so his client could continue to work the soil and support his teenage son.

But Webber, who explained that he had saved seed on the family farm where he grew up, said he could not ignore Ralph's efforts to conceal evidence.

"I'm not interested in making an example of Mr. Ralph. At the same time, I can't turn a blind eye to his conduct," the judge said.

Taking note of the planting season, Webber said he would not require the farmer to report to prison before July 1.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/prison051403.cfm



Comment

From Horst
horst [at] nakis.gr
6-20-3

1. Why don't they start with organic farming? It is a viable method with the same profit after the first couple of years needed for the soil to recover.

2. Obviously, there are many farmers who suffer under this evil conduct of Monsanto.


What will happen when thousands of farmers do the same? i.e. save seeds for the next year.

They can't send them all to prison!

Civil disobeyance is the right way to answer this and it is usually successfull. Use the internet to get organized!

By the way, here in Europe Monsanto is THE symbol for evil Amerikkkan companies.

Abraham,
I am a businessperson first. My initial education was in economics/finance and marketing. I had a career as a small businessperson for a dozen years before merging my company with another. For the past several years, I have studied biotechnology -- not to be a scientist myself, but to be a more effective businessperson as I switch industries (from data to life sciences).

So my passion is in economics, development, globalization, etc. Since life sciences will mostly likely be the "industry of the 21st century", I went back to school to study it.

In this age of the knowledge worker, one must always be refreshing their skillset.

Has any one come up with a GM bush that's not dangerous to human and environment? EU would have no objection buying humand and environmental friendly bush.

I hope you're not calling me a Bush supporter.

He has exceeded my expectations, given all of the challenges he has faced.

But I didn't vote for the guy. I'm a 3rd party supporter.

"It is a problem of overproduction - society produces more than there naturally are buyers for, so to keep the economy going, we have to constantly produce new products and services that people will want, or make things disposable. For instance, if your computer that you are reading this on were to work for 15 years, then computer manufacturers would go broke - so instead we have planned obsolence. "

My original PC (circa 1983) and my original Mac (circa 1985) both work fine. My car was built in 1970. There was no planned obsolence. New technology has made them obsolete. Many other items (apparel, furniture) become obsolete because of fashion.