Glass is forever (NOT!)

I keep a spread sheet to track my photographic expenditures and I was alarmed to see today that the total I've spent is approaching $10,000 USD. What particularly caught my attenton is that the preponderance of my investment has been on glass. Of course.

That fact has really begun to bug me. Specifically, I've been asking myself "What exactly is it I have been buying?"

Everyone seems to admit the wisdom of investing in "glass" but, in fact, optical quality these days is just as much a function of software as it is in-lens optical design. Why then shouldn't lenses be considered as ephemeral as any other MFT gear? Many of you will argue that it matters not a whit whether an image is the product of in-lens correction or in-body correction or both -- well, I'm here to say that it matters A LOT to me. I understand that all optical design involves compromise but, in my opinion, such corrections should inhere in the design, engineering and quality of the lens itself. No exceptions.

If I could, I'd put my money where my mouth is and exchange every MFT lens I own for an equivalent larger, heavier example than could stand on its on own metits -- no software need apply.
I wonder if people truly understand that their expensive MFT lenses are more likely than not completely worthless except as used in conjunction with a suitably programmed body.
"Glass is forever."

Pfui! Not today it's not.

Marc