On the 12th of July 2010, apparently, at 1 AM, Harvey Pekar passed away. I haven’t read too much of Harvey Pekar and whatever I know about him is through the movie ‘American Splendor’ which was based on his life. I really did like what I saw in the movie and Harvey seemed like a brilliant guy for walking out on Letterman and writing the stuff he wrote.
I do remember one image, it depicts Harvey standing in front of a mirror and thinking “Now there’s a reliable disappointment”.
He’d maybe say the same about dying.
This person says I am wrong. I have posted extracts of his post along with my counter-points.
I’m writing this journal in order to “review” a flawed analysis of the movie Iron Man 2. Now I’m not going to argue with the reviewer’s opinion on the film overall, but they pointed out a few logical inconsistencies that, really, weren’t illogical.
The “analysis” can be found here: unidentifiedflyingpeaches.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/ferrosapiendeux-detailed-ironman-2-analysis/ and is necessary to understand what exactly I’m arguing against.
I will be addressing the reviewer directly, so don’t feel I’m personally attacking you, unless of course, you areactually read it. Flowerpowerboi, in which case, take offense, I’d love that. Though I’m pretty sure they’ll never
Firstly, in regards to Anton saying “that should be you”, it was more than likely the legacy that he was referring to, changing the world, being the rich and famous one, as opposed to being Iron Man.
Also, had you been paying attention to the movie, you’d have realised that if Anton hadn’t been deported by Howard Stark for wanting to make money from the new technology instead of changing the world, Ivan wouldn’t have been in Russia, ergo the circumstances would have been different and he might have been the one kidnapped by terrorists, not Tony.
I’d hardly call his tattoos an inaccuracy, again with the paying attention; later in the film it is explained that Ivan went to prison for at least 15 years for selling weapons-grade plutonium to Pakistan, a Russian prison. He more than likely associated with the Russian mob either prior to or during his time there, hence the tattoos, each one means something in Russian prison/Mafia circles. This is explained by Rourke in an interview, he researched thoroughly for the role, and he was even the one to suggest the pet for Ivan.
And the pet sucked. Also, he was in prison for about 15 years, you say. The tattoos are explained by the mob, agreed. Why is he, then, so poor? The mob is not stupid to not use the obvious talents that Vanko has. They could have and would have used his talents for their benefit. They didn’t. Also, the ‘mob’ in the USSR was basically a bunch of 24 hour party people; they’d have used Ivan and never let him go. Or they’d at least have rewarded him better for services rendered. He wouldn’t be so poor.
The focus on Tony’s dying is more to do with character development than anything else, Tony’s worst enemy is himself, that’s the battle he was fighting. He was lying to people he cared about, pushing them away and rapidly self destructing because he was running out of hope.
Exactly. It was slightly pointless. The character didn’t change, there was no growth and he’s back to normal by the end of it. He just kisses Pepper and makes up with Rhodey. This, again, was inevitable. They could have done more. “Kicking some ass” is used as a metaphor here, for doing something better with that time. That time could have been utilized better to create a bridge for the Avenger’s initiative or for giving the other characters some dimension. Everyone knows by the end of the first movie that Tony is a bit of an asshole and his own worst enemy. Why repeat yourself over and over again?
Iron Man, and Marvel in general, are more focussed on how the characters develop, rather than just the action, if you’re looking for more “ass kicking”, go watch Batman. Batman is lacking in character but all for punching people in the face for the sake of his dead parents.
Batman, maybe, doesn’t have the best origin in the world. I don’t see the character not developing at all. You probably haven’t read the comics well. Batman Year One was incredibly clear on the point that he isn’t doing it just to avenge his parents. Even if you watch Batman Begins, you understand that he isn’t doing it just for the sake of his dead parents. The dead parents are the things that spur him on to fight injustice. Batman is inspired from Zorro. The death of his parents is the incident that constantly reminds him of the fact that injustice exists. The idea is he will stop when he thinks there is a world where he isn’t needed.
Marvel have “realistic” heroes, they’re not perfect, they have their issues, and as such is touched upon lightly by Tony drinking himself into a stupor (more thoroughly explored in “Demon in a Bottle”). It wasn’t so much about the dying, more about how he was reacting to it.
No superhero is perfect. Every comic book has addressed that. Marvel superheroes, are merely, generally, always right. One story-line does not make up for a better developed character. He was reacting to it the way anyone would? He isn’t anyone. He is a super-hero. There is no way that he can react in the manner he was reacting.
It has become apparent that you probably should have watched it more than once, Tony actually comments on the security, showing they were just as baffled as you were. However, regarding “because terrorists only existed in the first Iron Man movie” I don’t know whether you noticed the whole “Welcome to Stark Expo” thing, but I believe Tony mentioned being the source of “the world’s longest period of world peace”, which is reiterated in the Court scene, also in the newspaper clippings on Ivan’s wall when he is making his arc reactor.
a) Tony comments on the security. Yay. Still doesn’t explain the breach. They were baffled, you say. Still doesn’t explain the breach. NO METAL DETECTORS? NO PERSONNEL CHECK? BUNCH OF RICH PEOPLE GOING TO BE AT SAID EVENT, NO ONE SPOTS THE IMPOSTOR. Doesn’t explain the breach. Saying that there is no security doesn’t clear up a plot hole.
b) I didn’t watch it more than once because I went to a press screening and then had a job that didn’t allow me to watch it more than once.
c) Tony mentioned being the source of “the world’s longest period of world peace”, which is reiterated in the Court scene, also in the newspaper clippings on Ivan’s wall when he is making his arc reactor. – Okay. Your point being? Has Tony eliminated terrorists everywhere? Has Tony solved various other issues like Israel-Palestine? There are terrorists everywhere. Different things are defined as terrorists by different people. He may be a nuclear deterrent; he is not a personal soldier to every government in the world. If he’d use the suit to THAT extent, he’d be dead by the second movie, going by the logic presented in the second movie. Plus, there wasn’t enough time. Killing Obadiah Stane does not make terrorism stop. Also, if he were dying and so concerned about the peace, he’d probably look for someone to take on the Ironman mantle. That would be logical. For a super-hero.
The point I’m trying to make is Iron Man is a “nuclear deterrent”, which also includes putting a damper on terrorist activity, lulling people into an unintentionally false sense of security where they feel safe enough to not be thorough in their security precautions.
I’d be hard pressed to find anyone reacting the way you say they will. The existence of a weapon as potent as the Ironman suit would only make people more security conscious. The general public would act in the same way you say they would, but governments all over the world would not. And enemies of governments, read terrorists, would not either. A threat that huge would mobilize them to react in a large way. This, I concede, could be the plot of the third movie, but that point is neither here nor there. Ironman or no, security conditions for events as huge as these are never relaxed. It is an international event, things like Interpol are involved. I doubt they’d be that lax.
Skipping ahead to Vanko’s break out. Again with the paying attention (or lack thereof), when Tony is going to talk to Ivan the first time, did you not see in SUBTITLES on the screen that they “checked his fingerprints and came up with nothing”? No? Really? Hmmm. They didn’t need to take any DNA samples as they’d seen his crime, they had video proof of it; they didn’t need further evidence. The body was probably mangled beyond recognition, so fingerprints were possibly destroyed (they might have been before he was put in the cell), so even though they now had Ivan’s prints on record, they probably had nothing to match it to.
Vanko was in jail, you say. Russian jail. They had records. These records could be obtained. They didn’t need to take any DNA samples for proof? Yes. They didn’t. It is protocol, I think to take certain samples when a guy is put in jail. Especially in a high security prison when you’re caught for disrupting an international event in which participants from multiple nations are involved? Not as big as the Olympics, I agree, but pretty big. They had video proof. Good for them and good for you. The DNA isn’t meant for evidence; it is generally needed for identification of the person caught. Even if they had no name for Vanko, they could still keep the records until they found an identity they could paste on his face. They could use these records to figure out if the body was Vanko’s or not.
If you were really going to justify any lack of logic here, it would be “why didn’t they notice that the destroyed body severely lacked in METAL TEETH?”
And those wouldn’t be ‘mangled up’ or knocked out in a blast?
Also, I’d like to point out that when Tony is researching Ivan, he found that the man had actually disappeared off of the grid after going to prison, meaning most records ceased to exist (Tony is the kind of man with the resources and skills to dig up information, not to mention the fact that he found out Ivan’s name, the police did not).
Exactly. International incident, big deal all around, people going nuts and the police find doodle-squat, the businessman does. Wow. Also, he went ‘off of the grid’ as you put it after going to prison. When he did go to prison, there would be records from then.
This is what really bothers me, I’m not even sure you were watching the same film. Tony didn’t know the element to synthesize, his father did, and he required information Nick Fury had regarding the element before he could synthesize it. He had to work out a puzzle in a set up he didn’t have readily available in his home and didn’t know held the information he needed prior to watching the reels.
HI! HE KNOWS WHAT ELEMENT TO SYNTHESIZE AFTER HE GETS ALL THE INFO? GOOD. He knows HOW to synthesize an element, not knows the element. He knows what effect palladium and other elements have on his body. He knows a ton of shit. He doesn’t know that a simple compound like lithium dioxide can counter palladium poisoning? Lithium dioxide, which I don’t believe exists, but it can in comic book universe, would be a pretty normal to obtain/create compound. If he’s smart enough to be able to do that, he should be smart enough to figure out lithium dioxide counters palladium poisoning. I was cool with the synthesizing stuff part. Particle accelerators rule.
Tell me this, would you think to scan a model your dad made 30 years ago and digitally tear it apart until you found the molecular structure of a new element? No, you wouldn’t. Tony didn’t piece this together until he had all of the facts, including his father’s notes.
HI! OKAY GREAT THANX FOR POINTING THAT OUT!
Vanko’s expertise in just about everything, as a physicist he more than likely worked for the Russian government or military or some such prior to going to prison (after all, how else would you obtain weapons-grade plutonium to sell to another country? Dig it up in your back yard? Unlikely).
Yes. Because people who work with the Russian government or military know EVERYTHING. Yes. He was getting plutonium, so what? North Korea has weapons grade plutonium, doesn’t make them awesome. If you scored a bunch of plutonium, you wouldn’t become a hacker from a physicist. He’s a computer programmer, he is a physicist, and he is a Mafioso, an engineer, a bird trainer and everything else. Makes no sense to me.
His father worked with Howard Stark and was likely to have experience in the same or correlating fields as Howard. Anton said at the beginning of the film “All I can leave you is my knowledge”, which probably means he taught Ivan everything he knew. Due to his alcohol abuse and his anger at Stark Industries, he instilled Ivan with his hatred, wanting his son to get the revenge he couldn’t.
Anton taught Ivan everything Ivan knew. Home-schooling 101 with EVERYTHING from computer programming to creating robots to physics to engineering to controlling Artificial Intelligence and programming it to hydraulics to weapons development to EVERYTHING. I’m only wondering why my daddy ain’t daddy cool.
As I’ve said, it was likely he was already working for the Russian government (and the possibly the Russian mob) before he went to prison. I don’t need to explain this again, but I will add that whilst working with science, the mob and also during his time in prison, its likely Ivan learned things from those he crossed paths with.
Again, they’re just nice benevolent people who care so much about him that they want to teach him a whole ton of stuff like that. I know where you’re coming from. Either that or Russian prisons have a buncha robot building factories.
Any “logical flaws” you’ve pointed out are flaws in your own logic, I’m afraid; most everything you’ve pointed out is your own misinterpretation and your inability to actually pay attention to the film you’re reviewing.
And to top it all off, you have realised this is a comic book movie haven’t you? Comic books have their own logic; you might want to look into that someday.
Yes. I realize they do. Which is fine as far as I am concerned. They don’t need to defy logic.
How Comic Book Logic applies to this film is also linked with Ivan’s knowledge of just about everything, hell Tony’srealistic. knowledge is equally as bizarre as Ivan’s. You can’t honestly think that realism in the aspects of their knowledge would make for a good film, can you? Tony wouldn’t have been able to make his suit if he didn’t have such a vast amount of knowledge, if he was more
Tony is an MIT graduate. He is also a weapons developer. He does have a bit of a thing going there, with him. He’s also insanely rich, which Ivan isn’t.
Ivan is the same; he wouldn’t make for a particularly interesting villain if all he did was try to bamboozle Tony with physics.
He would, actually. That would be the coolest super-hero movie ever.
Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, dislike Batman comics, games, TV shows or movies; I love them actually, but Batman isn’t the most in-depth superhero on the planet now is he? His stories are more focussed on the action and the villains than building any actual sense of character in old Bruce. There isn’t really that long a period where revenge for your dead parents can be considered valid, especially when you’ve already seen the murderer dealt with (in the film anyway).
I also do not condone taking Comic Book movies seriously, nor do I feel that anyone has the right to be quite so pants-on-head-retarded when reviewing media. Honestly, if you’re going to review something, the least you can do is pay attention to the damned thing.
I do, however, promote occasional seriousness within your preferred fandom, as you could one day be faced by a numpty like “Flowerpowerboi” and feel the need to respond nerdily.
GEE THANKS MAN! BYE!
I have just watched the new Ironman movie. It is called Ironman 2. I will now post a detailed analysis of the movie, it may have spoilers, so you may not want to read it before having watched the movie.
The movie begins where the last one left off, with Anthony Stark announcing that he is Ironman. After which we glimpse our baddy, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke. It is revealed, that the arc reactor technology was developed by Howard Stark and Anton Vanko, Anton Vanko being Ivan’s father. Now, Anton is dying and he says to his son, “That should be you” looking at the television screen.
Here, we see the first sign of something stupid in the movie. Tony Stark doesn’t become Ironman just because his dad built an arc reactor. He becomes Ironman so that he can escape from a random terror outfit and also not die. Which basically means that Ivan Vanko would have to be placed in similar circumstances, which are very possible in Russia, but unlikely. The second thing would be, of course, that Tony Stark thought of the idea of a miniature arc reactor to power his suit, not Anton or Ivan Vanko. The dialogue makes no sense, at all.
The second inaccuracy in the same scene is the number of tattoos and what-not on Ivan Vanko’s body. It is later revealed that he is a physicist, and though there is no law preventing a physicist from getting tattooed all over, they generally and preferably look like this:
But let us forget all of that, it is but a minor thing.
The film moves on, with Ivan Vanko building himself a nice suit and arc reactor thing by looking at plans that his father left him. He also randomly feeds his ‘burd’, which we will address later. The film moves on to USA and Tony Stark is dying. There is a lot of concentration on the him dying part. The obvious problem that I had with this, was that it is only the second movie. IT IS KIND OF OBVIOUS THEY AREN’T KILLING HIM OFF BEFORE THE AVENGERS DUH DUDE THAT TIME COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT BETTER BY HAVING HIM KICK SOME ASS OR SOMETHING.
Tony goes to Monaco and at Monaco, he races a car. Around this time, disguised as some maintenance/security guy, Ivan Vanko steps out on to the race-track walking with a bunch of maintenance people. He’s wearing a metal harness under his clothes, which no one worries about. It doesn’t show up in metal detectors and an event as huge as the Monaco GP does NOT at all check who is walking in and out as part of maintenance because terrorists only existed in the first Ironman movie. After which a very nice sequence follows where Tony reveals his new suit. This part is rather cool.
He beats up Vanko, who is taken into custody by the police. This is basically all that happens around this time. Tony and Pepper go back home, Pepper is kind of pissed off, Tony is acting weird because he is obviously going to die. After getting back everyone is going crazy because Vanko has developed a suit like the Ironman suit and it is a threat to national security. Things aren’t looking good for Tony. Some other movie stuff happens.
There is a birthday party, Tony gets drunk and other movie stuff happens. Meanwhile, Ivan Vanko busts out. Everyone thinks he is dead because they replace Ivan with some other guy, and since they don’t FINGER-PRINT Ivan or take samples or anything when they take him into custody, they normally assume that the dead body is the same as Ivan. Or preferably, the entire country’s police force as well as the Interpol is bribed because a Russian national with fake ID and extremely dangerous weapons is not actually checked. Either that, or he was in jail for picking someone’s pocket at the GP.
After this, basically Tony is in a fix. He is very poisoned and will probably be dead in a bit of time. So he’s all sad about that and he’s feeling quite lonely. Around this time, after having lost an eye to some snakes on a plane, comes this guy who pumps him with lithium dioxide or some other randomly normal sounding compound of the same type. The randomly simple sounding compound counters the palladium poisoning and Tony gets a lot better. So far, so good. Tony then goes on to synthesize a random element that will power his new suit, using a particle accelerator that I presumed, he built, but my friend said he could have bought it and that is a possibility.
The problem, of course, is this, Tony knows what elements to synthesize and stuff, can he not easily figure out how to counteract palladium poisoning? Sure, maybe he can’t figure out an alternative energy source, but it does seem slightly stupid when you think about how he cannot figure out how to counter-act palladium poisoning using a simple compound. Maybe he just didn’t have the time to worry and WANT TO SAVE HIS OWN LIFE.
Another thing that was probably a bit hard to digest was Ivan Vanko’ s apparent expertise in EVERYTHING. Physics, computers, programming, mechanics, robotics and engineering and EVERYTHING. Why a man that talented would not be working for the USSR or for a BLOODY HUGE AMERICAN COMPANY is beyond me. But this does happen and he starts working for Hammer and builds robots and stuff. Then he attacks everything in sight at the Stark Expo.
Then there is a huge battle and stuff and Tony saves a lot of people and then Tony and War Machine fight a bunch of people and then they defeat Vanko and there are blasts everywhere, but everyone is safe, mostly and Tony and Pepper are all lovey-dovey and stuff. They have a small part related to the Avenger’s Initiative and stuff. The movie ends.
Not too many logical flaws, but then again, the few that are there, are quite horrible. Scarlett Johanssen is slightly cool in her role as the Black Widow. Robert Downey Jr. plays a very decent Ironman again, Pepper is good as is Don Cheadle in the role of Rhodey. What is good about the movie is the Avenger’s initiative that it will lead to. Otherwise, it is a very normal, fun-to-watch movie. Not boring.
There are many other aspects of the movie that I wanted to get into, but the post keeps growing longer and longer, hence I will continue in other posts as and when I think I want to.
In other whatever, a happy belated Star Wars Day. May the fourth be with you!
Hi. We all know that ‘forestation’ is not really a word. Now you won’t correct me.
I was talking to this friend and I came up with this joke. It goes like so:
IF A PERSON REALLY LOVES THE ENVIRONMENT AND GETS SEXUAL SATISFACTION BY PLANTING TREES, WHAT IS THAT PERSON INDULGING IN?
The answer is simple. Sexual forestation.
See? It was funny when I made it the first time. My friend was quick to suggest that this person could be totally turned on by different types of trees. If the person were into bushes, though:
And he’d support bad politicians.
Moving on to awesomer things, a friend of mine who lives online here came up with a extremely funny pun. We are, all aware of I can haz cheeseburger. If we aren’t, we can check them out here. And so my friend asked me to ‘visualify’ the pun. This has been done. The result is this:
Okay. I was really bored and all. Now I’m less bored. I WILL SEE YOU HAPPY CAMPERS LATER OKAYBYE!
There are clichés in Bollywood. They have Inner Meaning. IwrotedownsomeforyoubecauseIcouldthinkofnothingelsetodo.
1. The honest police inspector is always poor, idealistic and has a dead father/sick mother/sister who has been or will get raped.
Moral of the story – Don’t be an honest police officer if you love your family.
2. The ‘villain’ always has a constant set of friends throughout the movie. They get beaten up for him all the time, they listen to him all the time and they never leave his side. Alternatively, the hero generally has one or two. They usually die, either by the villian’s hands or by the hero’s (because they turn out to be evil).
Moral of the story – Don’t make too many friends and if you do, make sure you kill some of them. In the end, only you must survive.
3. The problems only begin after women enter the equation. Until then, life is carefree and happy and gay.
Moral of the story – GIRLS HAVE THE COOTIES DONT GO NEAR THEM OKAY?
4. The nice idealistic rich guy has to have a disability/mental problem/aneurism/incurable disease/sudden death/hot daughter/split personality that will take over and never let go/evil brother/evil wife/evil son/other specific problem.
Moral of the story – The nice idealistic rich guy will either die or turn into an evil idealistic rich guy. Ergo, there are no nice idealistic rich guys. If the nice idealistic rich guy survives the duration of the film, he inevitably transfers all his richness to the hero, thereby negating his own existence. There are no nice idealistic rich women. EVER.
5. The only reason the atheist is an atheist is because her/his father/mother/spouse/child/favourite uncle/dog/elephant left her/him. On the return of such described cause of atheism, faith is restored. Alternatively, if said protagonist is evil, he/she does not think her/his self worthy to indulge in prayer. He/she is still a believer.
Moral of the story – There is no atheism. If you logically deny the existence of god, you cannot exist in the movies. Hi.
6. The guy who smokes and wears shades, as well as bell-bottoms and single coloured suits, is generally a smuggler/corrupt builder who also indulges in smuggling/owner of a really flashy car and helicopter and boat, all of which are used for smuggling.
Moral of the story – If you smoke and wear shades and bell-bottoms and single coloured suits, you have something to hide.
7. The man with the moustache never ever gets the girl. If the girl is with a moustachioed man, she immediately gravitates towards the non-mustachioed hero. The hero hardly ever has a moustache. If he/she does, then he/she never gets the woman.
Moral of the story – Shave. Bollywood is afraid of your rampant manliness.
8. ‘David’ is always a fat, drunk bar-owner if he isn’t a fat, drunk good-for-nothing man. His only job is being fat and drunk all the time. He occassionally helps either the hero or the bad guy. He is a wise cracking drunk old man and generally falls off his chair at one point of time or the other. David is also the name of almost all Christian people. If they are women, they are irritable, kindly and referred to as ‘Aunty’. They give great advice, regardless of their drunken irritability.
Moral of the story – Christian people are always drunk, give good advice and cannot balance themselves on chairs.
9. The dog/monkey/elephant/pigeon/random exotic pet is well trained in the operation of machinery, has a standard understanding of gears and levers and in invincible in general hand-to-paw/talon/large foot combat. It generally and preferably does not die, but if it does, it dies heroically. Everyone except the hero dies heroically.
Moral of the story – The hero is a manipulative bastard.
10. The comic relief guy never gets money, girls or anything cool. The comic relief guy also generally has to contend with some sort of physical or mental disability. Bollywood is not sensitive.
Moral of the story – Being funny sucks and if you are funny, there is something probably wrong with you.
Which is why I am not and this post is not and fun is bad. Now you know. Now you are free.
Be well and may the force be with you. OKAYBYE!
Recently, due to my up-coming exams, I have been doing a lot of reading. The reading is entirely irrelevant to any of the subject matter that my exams will address, but it is good reading, nonetheless. There is an excellent post which I think you should read before progressing any further into my own. That post can be read here. It is really good and should be read.
In case you did not read it, it is about animal testing and the ethical considerations of animal testing, as well as Vulcans and other aliens. Overlooking that digression, we move on to the subject of my post. There were certain articles I read online and after some research, I came up with certain conclusions. Before progressing any further, I would also like to add that there is absolutely nothing about my family in this, I only wanted to let the world know or show off about reading Gerald Durrell’s excellent ‘My Family and other animals’. It is moste fune.
Getting back, we approach the aforementioned HeroRAT. Rats are not loved by people, it is a thing I often deplore. They aren’t such bad creatures, although they do lead to plagues and the like. If given enough love, they would develop into excellent pets and would definitely lead to very interesting scenes when introduced into a social situation like a party or a get-together. HeroRATs take the concept of rat awesomeness to a whole new level. They are, basically from a universe where Remy the Rat was cast in The Hurt Locker sequel about mine detection. In simple terms, these rats have an excellent sense of smell and are trained to detect land mines, which can then be deactivated. They have also given rise to a whole new type of cheat-code:
Basically, HeroRATs are trained from birth to recognize the smell of explosives using Pavlovian techniques, used effectively by Sheldon on Penny. The rats are then either used to isolate areas that might have many mines or to detect mines themselves. The rats are never in any danger because their size and weight is not enough to actually set off a mine. They’re also adept at diagnosing tuberocolosis and have been a great help in treating the disease.
Yes, they are.
Moving on, there are many other animals that can be used for the detection of landmines and explosives. An article about that and more information about the heroRATs can be found in this very well-written article.
The other animals I want to discuss are microscopic wasps. Researchers John Werren and Stephen Richards have sequenced genomes of three parasitic wasps and have come up with creatures that might be potential agents of pest control. These tiny wasps can be introduced into food crops (as parasitoids [brutal, aren’t they?]) and will take care of dirty pests like caterpillars which harm crops. And with further development, they might be introduced to non-native environments, providing a possibly inexpensive and organic method of pest control. This would, of course mean healthier food for people and a definite reduction in the cost of crop production. The obvious problem is what it could do to the native species. The wasps could instead become the pest after wiping out or significantly destroying the native pest population. This would have adverse effects on the ecosystem of that particular area. The most relevant and probably most widely known example would be of the cane toad which was introduced as an agent of biological control in Australia and has now become a huge problem.
But hopefully, the wasp can be developed as an alternative pesticide without having any bad effects. If research on these lines is continued, it could lead to a marked non-reliance on chemicals and would also lead to a better lifestyle. It would probably also not affect the earth as much as chemical fertilizers do. There are many arguments for and against biological pest control, but there is no denying that if it succeeds, it can change the way we live. As we part, I would like to impress on your mind an image that will, hopefully, stay with you forever.
All for now! Byebye! :D
It does make sense in a strange sort of way.
You’ll have to click on it to make it work, probably. That is all! Okaybye! (Fornow…)
Also, must mention fact that I made this. Not, anyone else.