• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

>>>> Closed Thread Container <<<<

Do you play with Nuzlocke rules?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 14 27.5%
  • No...

    Votes: 30 58.8%
  • What the hell is Nuzlocke?

    Votes: 7 13.7%

  • Total voters
    51
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mercury Lamp

And there was snow..
If pokemon existed, their use would be regulated by law and by some kind of international organitation.The world wouldn't be like the anime, obviously.
 
I must say, this thread has actually inspired em to write a fic about our world if there were Pokemon in it.

On topic though, I think it'd be full of problems. As has been pointed out before, warfare would be absolute mayhem, the world would be chaos, travel between cities would be highly dangerous... But I'm sure there would also be good things.
 

Umbreon-dana

Phat Philanthropist
Indragon said:
No school or college in exchange for training Pokemon?

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but schools exist in Pokemon, and are likely mandatory. At least until you are ten. Possibly, when you reach ten you (and your parents) are presented with a choice: go into the world training Pokemon, or stay in school. But that choice thing is just me fan wanking. Take it with a grain of salt.

On topic:

The inclusion of super powered monsters in the world would not increase crime. In fact, I'd say it would lower crime. The high powered Pokemon would not be available to the public for retail and catching them in the wild would be like trying to catch a full-grown grizzly bear in real life. I mean, when was the last time you've seen someone hold up a bank with a lion? And, to go further on this point, banks, stores, the police force, etc. would like have Pokemon to use to prevent crime. I'm talking about Machamp Guards here, people. Whip out a Pokeball/Gun, and boom, you're back's broken. And on the note of people using Exploding Pokemon to bomb houses, these are not grenades. They are sentient. They know that blowing themselves up would hurt themselves and others, and would not go around blowing people up willy-nilly. Or willy-wonka, for that matter. And, Legendaries only appear to those they deem worthy. As in, people who won't use them to rob a bank. Pokemon in the military would probably be as rare as dogs, and weapons would be more likely. Since, with tanks and guns, you have to worry less about increased causalities, PETP riots in your country, Pokemon attacking your troops, and whatnot.

I think someone brought up wild Pokemon killing everyone. Hahaha, no. Grizzly Bears rarely ever just wonder into cities and start mauling, Pokemon wouldn't be any different. They would find a suitable environment (like the woods or mountains) and probably stay there. Like ordinary animals. They would defend themselves if necessary (like most animals), and will not chase after you if you get within 30 yards of their nest. Unless it was a Gyarados, which are giant, easy to spot, and kind of trapped in water. Get out of range of its Hyper Beam and you have a 90% survival guarantee.

Pokemon causing natural disasters is kind of silly, to be honest. Using Pokemon Colosseum/XD/BR's Earthquake animation, and the fact that every time you use one of these moves the city (or building for that matter) you're in isn't destroyed, we can assume that these moves are rather light in scale, and (or, in the case of Magnitude) don't affect a wide range. And I don't know much about Earthquakes (mainly do to a lack of interest to look up information about them), but I don't think several 4.0 earthquakes happening in the same area simultaneously would bolster the effect. And honestly, the chances of a bunch of Pokemon gathering around a city and Surfing it to Davy Jone's Locker are a little more likely than a dam worker deciding to flood the town.

In addition to that, I'd imagine that, like in Dragonfree's The Quest for the Legends, there would be some kind of mutual agreement between Pokemon and Humans to not brutally kill each other for any reason but food.

Point is that, unlike what most people are trying to push here, Pokemon are quite docile.

RaZoR LeAf said:
Humans die of age or disease, along with every other kind of thing I've mentioned and the planet is still massively over populated. Add to the mix creatures that ONLY die of age or disease, but not of being hit and you're looking at a population melt-down.

Yeah, okay. We would have this to worry about.

RaZor LeAf said:
Prone to explode without warning, capable of exuding numerous poisonous gases. Note the 'without warning' part. It's not planned, it's random and something they'd have no control over.

Another thing we would have to worry about. Koffing just going around exploding against their will would be bad. However, I would argue that they just build up a large quantity of gas over time and their bodies would just expel it out against its will. Like how humans close up their wind pipe against their will when they choke. And, if I remember correctly, this is shown in Pokemon Ranger, so it's not a theory without basing.

RaZoR LeAf said:
A vulpix stopping to look both ways before crossing the road isn't exactly what comes to mind.

Vulpix, as living creatures, have survival instincts, the ability to hear and move, and basic intelligence. They hear a car coming, confuse the noise it makes for a roar, and jump out of the way.

RaZoR LeAf said:
Nobody with common sense would blow themselves up unless they thought there was something better on the other side. Suicide bombers are brainwashed into thinking that when they die they will be rewarded for it. Can pokemon not be given the same treatment?

They could probably just ask the "god" Pokemon. I mean, they're all over the place.

R. New said:
Milgram (1961), Sheridan & King (1972), the Stanford prison experiment (Zimbardo (1971)). Look them up if you want. They demonstrate that humans are inherently capable of being extremely unpleasant beasts.

I looked up the third. And the corrupted people were only the ones with a huge power advantage over the others (the "guards"). Everyone can get a Pokemon. Ergo, the evil nature would be moot, as almost everyone would have super powerful critters to defend themselves with against other super powerful critters.

Disclaimer: Arguments based on my memory are likely to be full of holes.

Back off topic: I'm pleasantly surprised at the intelligent discussion going on in here. Kudos.
 
Last edited:

BynineB

Wielding Übersaw.
Non existant, because some idiot would have captured Arceus and destroyed the world with it. Like.. Giovanni. yay masterbawlz.
 
Last edited:

Aquanova

Well-Known Member
wow the world sure would be different. I doubt 10 year old kids would be allowed to have pokemon. It wold probably be 16-18.Pokemon would be dangerous. Yeah if a pokemon uses a fire attack on you, you'd get burned. If Pikachu shocked you youd get electicuted If pokemon decided to fight and they were neer a town, it would get destroyed. It probabaly wouldnt be all bad. If we were smart we'd know how to handle ourselve around them. People could be trainers, but theyd have to be really careful. Id imagine people would have to go to a school to learn to be pokemon trainers, and get a liscence, after graduating, and not at the age of 10 it would most likely be adulthood.
 

Calvan

EXPLOSION!!!
Both interesting and more dangerous at the same time.
 

Dark Eevee

Well-Known Member
Has anyone read Narutaru? (well I didn't read much but I know how it ends)
It would be like that -_-

Almost everybody dies
 

The_Boss_Giygas

I. F.E.E.L. G.O.O.D.
If pokemon existed then I would be master of the universe cause I'd capture the god pokemon in a master ball!
 

saar

Shiny Flygon
It would be fun but a little bit dangerous when you're with many big pokemon and dangerous pokemn.
The most fun thing is to use the pokemon to help you do things you can't/don't want to do.
 

Indragon

Back in the USSR
Milgram (1961), Sheridan & King (1972), the Stanford prison experiment (Zimbardo (1971)). Look them up if you want. They demonstrate that humans are inherently capable of being extremely unpleasant beasts.

I looked up the last one, and I'll check out the other two later, but I'm just going to mention here that being capable of being unpleasant beasts or having the potential and means =/= doing it. Because inherently, humans wish to avoid pain and conflict (and yes, there are obviously exceptions, but just because they make the headlines doesn't mean they're in the majority)

A lot of you are also failing to take into account the fact that criminals are very often arrogant; they don't think they'll be caught, otherwise why would they commit the crime? So maybe we would be able to bring them to justice, but people would still have the means and opportunity to commit crimes and would believe they can get away with them, and that stuff goes a long way (the Zimbardo experiment is particularly relevant here).

And among other things, you're failing to take into account that every person or aiming-to-be-criminal will not have the means to possess legions of powerful Pokemon. Which means that whatever crimes can be committed today will be all that can be committed and the inclusion of Pokemon isn't a factor.

And yes, they can be arrogant, they can be desperate, but knowing that they'll be up against Pokemon from the law is a much larger deterrent than the comparatively lacking police system of now.

The difference is if two animals get into a fight then nothing much happens as they just use their claws/teeth. If two pokemon get into a fight then they've the potential to do much more damage with thunder bolts, ice beams and flame throwers.

And why would two Pokemon get into a fight for absolutely no reason? You're once again assuming that Pokemon like to kill for fun. And even assuming they do get into a fight, why would they come down from their mountains/forests, get into the middle of town before attacking each other. Those attacks don't have a range of kilometers on end, contrary to what you appear to be thinking.

Their body is made of liquid sludge. They move, they leave a trail of sludge. Ever seen a snail or slug leave a trail behind them? Same thing.

They may be made of liquid sludge, but their cells are cohesive enough for the sludge not to splash all around. If what you're saying is true, then all Grimer would gradually break into watery nothingness. If sludge could move, then it'd leave behind a wet patch and a bad smell, not a part of it. Besides, Grimer would just be doing this in sewers, a place that isn't even affected by this "pollution".

Also, the snail's trail is a secretion, not a part of its body.

Pretty much a dex entry yes. Prone to explode without warning, capable of exuding numerous poisonous gases. Note the 'without warning' part. It's not planned, it's random and something they'd have no control over.

Entei paradox.

'nuff said.

"What would the world be like if pokemon existed" and "What would the world be like if it was the same as the anime" are different questions.

Obviously.

One is based in reality the other is based on a fictional setting. If you want to use pokemon as they have been established then you have to accept that there will be powerful wild pokemon near to places, as that's inherently how it is in the anime and games.

Firstly, powerful wild Pokemon a few steps outside a city is only a part of the games. And that's because it's a game. They can't make maps that'll take 5 hours to get to the part with Pokemon in it. If you're going to go by the anime, then whatever powerful wild Pokemon Ash and the others have encountered have been in the wilderness and not right outside some town.

I'm going by the real world, where animals don't lurk in patches of grass outside your house and most wild ones are far away from places of human habitation.

You have to accept that there are powerful pokemon in every square bit of grass waiting to jump out and attack.

And I assume you realise how ridiculous this sounds?

Humans die of age or disease, along with every other kind of thing I've mentioned and the planet is still massively over populated. Add to the mix creatures that ONLY die of age or disease, but not of being hit and you're looking at a population melt-down.

Yeah, that might be a problem, but wild Pokemon don't have an efficient healthcare and medical system.

A vulpix stopping to look both ways before crossing the road isn't exactly what comes to mind.

Eh? If there's a Vulpix and it wants to get from point A to B, and there's a road in the middle, the Vulpix walks onto the road, hears/sees a car coming (if the car's close enough to hit it, then it really doesn't have to look all over to see it; if it's far enough, the Vulpix will have crossed the road before the car gets there), and either scampers across the road or back to point A and waits for the car to pass.

If you have a pokemon.
If your pokemon is capable of battling and defeating it.

1. Made possible by giving a fishing license and allowing purchase of a fishing rod to only those with Pokemon/license.

2. Might *potentially* be a problem. Typically, Pokemon who get drawn up by rods are quite weak, especially since they'll be hooked onto the rod and you can pull them ashore. Additionally, your Pokemon might do just enough damage to scare it back into the water (assuming it can even get there, what with it's weakened state on land)

Nature Documenters manage to take photos and record footage without getting up close and personal.

Possibly, but there are those who do/would like to get close up for their footage. Observation without human interference is limited after all, and researchers might not care about the interference part after a while. However, the initial point still stands that a Swampert wouldn't automatically attack any human it sees, whether it be standing next to it or at a distance.

What's rare when we're talking about the whole world? Red Squirrels are rare in the UK, you go to Northern Europe and Russia and they are abundant. What's rare to one location isn't rare to another. And anyway that IS what happens. Someone has a rare pokemon. "Oh look, that's a rare pokemon, I've only ever seen one on TV, look kids a Claydol you don't see those everyday.". Not "Oh look that's a rare pokemon, I've only ever seen one on TV, why would a normal person have one? I better call the police, because someone having a pokemon that isn't a generic uncommon pokemon is obviously a thief/criminal." If you see something you don't see everyday you will stop and stare, but not drop everything to investigate it.

I never said/implied anything of that sort. You're right obviously, I was justing pointing out that anyone with a Claydol or two with them (especially outside their Pokeballs) strolling down a road wouldn't result in passerbys not batting an eyelid.

Nobody with common sense would blow themselves up unless they thought there was something better on the other side. Suicide bombers are brainwashed into thinking that when they die they will be rewarded for it. Can pokemon not be given the same treatment?

Well, tell me how you'd brainwash a bunch of wild Pokemon you caught, who don't even care for you to start of with and don't give a damn for your motives and would get suspicious whenever one started acting strange around them?

Whilst cartoon dumbing down would play some part, I looked it up. 'The Underground Round Up'. Electrodes Explosion destroys a bridge. Tracey says a number of exploding Electrodes could take out an island. 'Pikachu Re-Volts', Togepi's explosion is enough to destroy Team Rocket's base. So it clearly is powerful enough to destroy buildings.

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself about not taking the anime as a basis for any fact. Well, anyway, in the anime, virtually every attack causes a huge explosion, complete with fire, smoke and a mushroom cloud. Even attacks like Bubble end up setting fire to machines and buildings, causing a colossal explosion and sending the recipients of the attack skywards at an alarming velocity. So, Bubble and Explosion are both roughly equal in power, which obviously isn't the case. Additionally, if the same Explosion were to be used in an anime battle, then the attack would knock out both Pokemon; though by precedence, it should have killed anyone within range. Another reason why the contradictory nature of the attack in the anime can't be treated as fact.

If you look at the facts, the attack Explosion can't even dent a Pokemon like Onix or Steelix too much, it won't be doing much to buildings.

Why risk getting caught with a bomb when you can have a pokemon? Everyone else has pokemon with them, so you're not going to be suspected any more than anyone else.

Anyone with a Pokemon capable of learning Explosion will probably be suspected slightly anyway, because of the notoriety of some Pokemon like Electrode. However, my point was that in the same scenario, a bomb could have been just as easily be brought (it's not much of a risk when you can just walk down the street with your backpack and people won't notice you, is it?) and the bomb would have assuredly exploded since it can't refuse like a Claydol, while stilling providing more of an explosive force.

Nope, I've now proved that it is powerful enough. Anime canon, therefore inherent.

Voided by inherent anime canon.

And I've proven how it isn't. And I've also proven how anime canon isn't inherent, and there's more evidence right below. Also, from a real-life point of view, the anime is unbelievable and contradictory and since we're arguing about a more realistic existence of Pokemon here, why do you keep bringing up the anime canon? I believe we weren't counting any of that as realistic, or else, none of our posts mean anything, because by anime canon, nothing whatsoever will go wrong ever.

And before you say I'm doing the same, I'll mention that all I'm doing is basing things on the given fundamentals of Pokemon from the games - since a lot of them overlap with the anime, you seem to assume I'm explaining things by anime canon, when actually, I'm not.

You HAVE said Team rocket can survive a thunderbolt, since them ALWAYS surviving being hit by attacks is an inherent part of pokemon.

No it isn't, it's a part of the anime, and I haven't ever said anything of the sort. A Pokemon's physiology, their inability to die, their typings and their attacks are an inherent part and something that sets is apart from animals. Once more, you're the one who brings up what the anime has established, but that too, situationally.

The nature of the Pokemon is the only thing that can be taken as fact, anime/game characters don't come into the picture. Pokemon existing is unrealistic, Pokemon having types and correspondingly weakness is too, Pokemon surviving 1000's of watts of electricity as well, but if we're talking about Pokemon being real, then all that is true too, or else it's not Pokemon we're talking about.

So your point is now moot. You can't have it both ways. Either pokemon being real is EXACTLY the same as the anime in every aspect, or it is NOTHING like the anime. You can't pick and choose what is real and what is not.

While I'd hope Pokemon being real would be exactly like the anime, that obviously won't be the case. I'm not choosing anything apart from what we know of Pokemon as fact. I'm not using the anime as a basis for explanations; the only time when it would appear to be so is when the nature and fundamentals of Pokemon come into question, and since that's largely uniform in the games, anime and other aspects of the franchise, it's not singling out the anime (and that's also the only kind of "fact" we have to discuss matters on).

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but schools exist in Pokemon, and are likely mandatory. At least until you are ten. Possibly, when you reach ten you (and your parents) are presented with a choice: go into the world training Pokemon, or stay in school. But that choice thing is just me fan wanking. Take it with a grain of salt.

Well, yeah, I had overlooked that, but hey - Pokemon school (the way I imagine it) would be fun, so I'd enjoy attending it.
 

Alisbet

The Brave
Let's see, if the Pokemon would be real then I am sure that the world would be a rather different place. We would most likely keep them as companions and things like that. I mean, imagine a tough gang member that would keep a let's say, a Mightyena for extra intimation and things like that.
 
Last edited:

Endless

Sun God ☉
^
About the fact that you can't kill pokemon by normal means, I must disagree they can be killed. Everybody remember the Marowak that was killed by tteam rocket grunts. However some of the longlived pokemon like warturtle and ninetales will really make the population explode anyway.
 

RaZoR LeAf

Night Terror
And why would two Pokemon get into a fight for absolutely no reason? You're once again assuming that Pokemon like to kill for fun. And even assuming they do get into a fight, why would they come down from their mountains/forests, get into the middle of town before attacking each other. Those attacks don't have a range of kilometers on end, contrary to what you appear to be thinking.

Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say pokemon would get into fights for no reason, nor that they would take said fight to the middle of a city, nor did I say they would get into fights for fun. Why do wild animals get into fights? Because they are natural rivals, because they feel threatened, because they have territories to defend, because they have families to defend, because they don't want to get eaten, because they have a love rival. Pick one. Fight in a forest. Flame Thrower. Forest Fire. Spreads quickly, suddenly you're looking at a massive wildfire spanning acres of land. It happens in a dry hot country and then you've got double the damage.

They may be made of liquid sludge, but their cells are cohesive enough for the sludge not to splash all around. If what you're saying is true, then all Grimer would gradually break into watery nothingness. If sludge could move, then it'd leave behind a wet patch and a bad smell, not a part of it. Besides, Grimer would just be doing this in sewers, a place that isn't even affected by this "pollution".

Also, the snail's trail is a secretion, not a part of its body.

Sorry, I forgot you had a degree in pokemon physiology. I'm making assumptions on what I see and what I know, and how it would compare to our world and our environment. I'm not making stuff up because it sounds cool.

Entei paradox.

'nuff said.

What the **** does that mean when it's at home?

Firstly, powerful wild Pokemon a few steps outside a city is only a part of the games. And that's because it's a game. They can't make maps that'll take 5 hours to get to the part with Pokemon in it. If you're going to go by the anime, then whatever powerful wild Pokemon Ash and the others have encountered have been in the wilderness and not right outside some town.

I'm going by the real world, where animals don't lurk in patches of grass outside your house and most wild ones are far away from places of human habitation.

The anime and the games are different entities. You have to decide which one you are going to reference.

And I assume you realise how ridiculous this sounds?

You said, and I quote, "If Pokemon exist, then they'll exist the way it has been established to be". Pokemon has established that there are wild pokemon ready and willing to jump out at every opportunity.

Yeah, that might be a problem, but wild Pokemon don't have an efficient healthcare and medical system.

Neither does China, still over populated.

Eh? If there's a Vulpix and it wants to get from point A to B, and there's a road in the middle, the Vulpix walks onto the road, hears/sees a car coming (if the car's close enough to hit it, then it really doesn't have to look all over to see it; if it's far enough, the Vulpix will have crossed the road before the car gets there), and either scampers across the road or back to point A and waits for the car to pass.

Well know I know where roadkill has gone wrong, the animals in our world are clearly thick. No chance of one of them chasing prey and running into the road by chance? Or would the prey (say a tiny mammal like a rattata) stop and look to, or would it, fearing for it's life, also run into the road?


1. Made possible by giving a fishing license and allowing purchase of a fishing rod to only those with Pokemon/license.

2. Might *potentially* be a problem. Typically, Pokemon who get drawn up by rods are quite weak, especially since they'll be hooked onto the rod and you can pull them ashore. Additionally, your Pokemon might do just enough damage to scare it back into the water (assuming it can even get there, what with it's weakened state on land)

1. Again the assumption that everyone MUST want or have a pokemon.
2. Depends where you fish. If you're a Sea Fisher, then you're in the middle of the sea and there's going to be a lot more, dare I say it, stronger pokemon. Yes you'd likely take a stronger pokemon with you, but **** happens, you're expecting a Magikarp and you hook a Gyarados.


Possibly, but there are those who do/would like to get close up for their footage. Observation without human interference is limited after all, and researchers might not care about the interference part after a while. However, the initial point still stands that a Swampert wouldn't automatically attack any human it sees, whether it be standing next to it or at a distance.

Fair enough, I concede.

Well, tell me how you'd brainwash a bunch of wild Pokemon you caught, who don't even care for you to start of with and don't give a damn for your motives and would get suspicious whenever one started acting strange around them?

You've said pokemon will become attached to a person by reading their emotions. Do pokemon have the same morals and ethics as humans? I doubt to the same level. While they may know that right is right and wrong is wrong, but if the person they are being raised by shows them love and affection and has strong feelings about certain things, then wouldn't the pokemon too? if those feelings happened to be thigns that other people in the world didn't like, wouldn't that be the same? Say a pokemon is raised in an area that is particularly racist, or homophobic. I doubt pokemon would have concepts of racism or homophobia, or any other discrimination like we do. They would be raised by a loving family, who happened to hate black people. The pokemon wouldn't suddenly turn around and disown them because of their 'beliefs'. So if a terrorist raised a pokemon with love and affection, wouldn't the pokemon become attuned to their way of thinking?


Now you seem to be contradicting yourself about not taking the anime as a basis for any fact. Well, anyway, in the anime, virtually every attack causes a huge explosion, complete with fire, smoke and a mushroom cloud. Even attacks like Bubble end up setting fire to machines and buildings, causing a colossal explosion and sending the recipients of the attack skywards at an alarming velocity. So, Bubble and Explosion are both roughly equal in power, which obviously isn't the case. Additionally, if the same Explosion were to be used in an anime battle, then the attack would knock out both Pokemon; though by precedence, it should have killed anyone within range. Another reason why the contradictory nature of the attack in the anime can't be treated as fact.

If you look at the facts, the attack Explosion can't even dent a Pokemon like Onix or Steelix too much, it won't be doing much to buildings.

I think the anime sucks, that's why I dislike using it as any reference of fact, but fine. Conceding.
 

Gentleman

Sitting on Horsea
Actually, I'm going to take this idea and run with it.

Okay, so for this assumption, we're going by the idea that Pokemon have essentially been a part of the world since the beginning, and have not magically appeared in the world today.

So, before we get all, "And people would use these to rob banks and wars would be really bloody," we'd first have to think about exactly what kind of world one with Pokemon would produce. It's highly unlikely that everything will happen as it did with fire-breathing creatures added into the mix. History as we know it could have ended up entirely differently when you take into account that Pokemon are there. This could go back into prehistoric times where man simply can't get meat in his diet because everything is just so much deadlier to him than he is to them, even when he has stone tools. Maybe the top spot held by humans in our world ends up going a coalition of Pokemon led by the super-intelligent Psychic types.

Moreover, even assuming history happens as it did up to a certain point, everything still ends up changing at some point. Europe would no longer have such a decisive military advantage, because every culture it'd come into contact with could have Pokemon, and they'd be a fair match for guns, definitely. European imperialism might simply never make it, because their military advantages in our history would be counterbalanced by the fact that everybody could have much more destructive weapons in that history.

A big part of that, though, would come from exactly how advanced you'd have to be to "catch" Pokemon. There's evidence that you can catch Pokemon in devices much more primitive than Pokeballs, but the question would be how much more primitive. Would they be available to people with stone age technology like the MesoAmericans? If so, then even with disease and the natives' internal problems on their side, Europe would find the New World a much tougher conquest, if a conquest at all.

Which then brings things into question as to how technology would pan out without Europe bringing its discoveries to the rest of the World. Would a lot of the world still be preindustrial simply because Europe never managed to get a foot in their doorsteps?

It'd be really difficult to even theorize changes beyond really vague stuff, simply because it's more or less impossible to understand how exactly everything would pan out with Pokemon in the mix. Still, I'd think they'd have a really interesting impact on history if they'd existed in the "real world", maybe more than they would in everyday life.
 

Swampert_trainer

Laughs at thunder
Guys. There's more than just Pokemon vs. People that dosen't work.

Let's say that a Tyranitar gets mad at a Machamp or something, and the two fight. I can hardly say how that's good for anyone. Especially near a village of some sort, their fight will likely destroy all life around.

Also, the "Pokemon Trainer at early age" thing is highly impractible. Someone has to make the technology to do things and keep the Pokemon under some state of control, and if they spent their entire time in school instead fighting with their Pokemon, I doubt that would work.

Also, the "Friendly" pokemon argument dosen't work, as if I was a Swampert and a guy went up to my nest, I would defend myself and kill them. Seriously.
Swampert_trainer approves.

In theory, real Pokemon sounds like a nice idea, but let's face it, I think as a species, we have proven that if given a weapon, we will use it to try and destroy those who don't agree with our ideals and beliefs. It would be chaos if humans had access to powerful element controling monsters.
 

Indragon

Back in the USSR
Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say pokemon would get into fights for no reason, nor that they would take said fight to the middle of a city, nor did I say they would get into fights for fun. Why do wild animals get into fights? Because they are natural rivals, because they feel threatened, because they have territories to defend, because they have families to defend, because they don't want to get eaten, because they have a love rival. Pick one. Fight in a forest. Flame Thrower. Forest Fire. Spreads quickly, suddenly you're looking at a massive wildfire spanning acres of land. It happens in a dry hot country and then you've got double the damage.

OK, forest fires are problems but there'll be Pokemon in forests who'll use their own attacks to stop the fire so as to prevent their home from getting burnt down. What I was also saying that Pokemon fighting in forests would not lead to villages outside getting destroyed by their attacks.

Sorry, I forgot you had a degree in pokemon physiology. I'm making assumptions on what I see and what I know, and how it would compare to our world and our environment. I'm not making stuff up because it sounds cool.

And even I'm going by what I see - and since, among other things, Grimer don't disintegrate after a few minutes of existence, I conclude that they don't leave a part of their body behind whenever they walk.

What the **** does that mean when it's at home?

Essentially, it means Dex entries are ridiculous and contradictory and many are unbelievable; hence, they can't be used as a source of accurate information. Look up Entei's GSC entries along with the several "Most Ridiculous Pokedex entries" threads in GPD.

The anime and the games are different entities. You have to decide which one you are going to reference.

I'm going by the games and translating that to the larger and more realistic scale of the real world.

You said, and I quote, "If Pokemon exist, then they'll exist the way it has been established to be". Pokemon has established that there are wild pokemon ready and willing to jump out at every opportunity.

Firstly, I was referring to the Pokemon themselves, not to their availability, which is a gameplay feature.

Secondly, you're once again failing to understand how things in the game transform when talking about the real world. Random grass patches with Pokemon in them, many more than can fit in a small patch of grass, too, exist in the games because they are RPGs on a handheld system. They follow the "random monster encounter" style and the gameplay needs a method where infinite Pokemon can be found for capturing and/or training, but the maps in the game are not infinite. In the real world, there aren't those kind of grass patches, the number of Pokemon/animals are not infinite and each Pokemon/animal has a habitat where they live; they don't lurk in strange grass.

Neither does China, still over populated.

Still has a better medical system than wilderness.

Well know I know where roadkill has gone wrong, the animals in our world are clearly thick. No chance of one of them chasing prey and running into the road by chance? Or would the prey (say a tiny mammal like a rattata) stop and look to, or would it, fearing for it's life, also run into the road?

Once again, be it whatever situation that a Pokemon runs onto the road (especially if it's trying to get away by going to the other side of the road), the Pokemon can and will hear the sound of a car approaching and get a glimpse of it from the corner of its eye. Whatever the case, it takes hardly a few seconds for a Rattata/Vulpix to run across the road (or run back if it isn't being chased), since its width is fortunately not endless.

1. Again the assumption that everyone MUST want or have a pokemon.
2. Depends where you fish. If you're a Sea Fisher, then you're in the middle of the sea and there's going to be a lot more, dare I say it, stronger pokemon. Yes you'd likely take a stronger pokemon with you, but **** happens, you're expecting a Magikarp and you hook a Gyarados.

1. Everyone who wants to fish must have a Pokemon.

2. Well, assuming even that you don't go prepared with your own strong Pokemon, the fact is that it's virtually impossible to hook and draw up a Gyarados on a fishing rod. Even if the Gyarados takes the bait, it'll probably bite the entire lower section of the rod off, or even without that, it simply can't get hooked by a thin rod with that huge mouth. Furthermore, at 518.1 pounds, it's almost impossible to pull up a Gyarados.

Also, Thunderwave, Sleep Powder...paralysis and sleep - those may be all that's required to handle some of these fishing Pokemon, might not be necessary to defeat them.

You've said pokemon will become attached to a person by reading their emotions. Do pokemon have the same morals and ethics as humans? I doubt to the same level.

It's variable I guess - while some may not have it to the same level, others might or even more.

While they may know that right is right and wrong is wrong, but if the person they are being raised by shows them love and affection and has strong feelings about certain things, then wouldn't the pokemon too?

Not necessarily - a Pokemon raised with love would trust its owner and return the kindness in whatever way it can but it doesn't have to believe in their ideologies.

if those feelings happened to be thigns that other people in the world didn't like, wouldn't that be the same? Say a pokemon is raised in an area that is particularly racist, or homophobic. I doubt pokemon would have concepts of racism or homophobia, or any other discrimination like we do. They would be raised by a loving family, who happened to hate black people. The pokemon wouldn't suddenly turn around and disown them because of their 'beliefs'.

As you say, Pokemon don't have concepts of racism or homophobia, so for them, humans are humans, a separate species. Even if the family poisons them against blacks, the fact that Pokemon view humans and humans and don't judge them by their skin colour means that while it may listen to its owner's hatred against blacks, it wouldn't comprehend it or act on it. So while it won't obviously disown its family, their beliefs would not be understood or taken to heart by the Pokemon.

So if a terrorist raised a pokemon with love and affection, wouldn't the pokemon become attuned to their way of thinking?

Quite simply - no. Add to that a Pokemon would know that a loving trainer wouldn't order it to explode and injure itself and would naturally hesitate when told to do so while instinct would tell it not to obey.

And lastly, it's unlikely a terrorists would have the capability to devote time and attention to Pokemon whom they consider expendable weapons. A false, temporary display of love wouldn't cut it with Pokemon thanks to their near-human intelligence, which would mean that they could see through the falsehood. Especially if, right from day 1, the trainer takes the Pokemon to a secluded area for constant training. That'd make the Pokemon doubt and somewhat dislike the trainer. And still wouldn't give a damn for their ideologies.

Swampert_trainer said:
In theory, real Pokemon sounds like a nice idea, but let's face it, I think as a species, we have proven that if given a weapon, we will use it to try and destroy those who don't agree with our ideals and beliefs. It would be chaos if humans had access to powerful element controling monsters.

Going by that, it would be chaos if humans had access to nuclear weapons (as is now), but evidently, things aren't all that chaotic yet.
 

Gentleman

Sitting on Horsea
RaZoR_LeAf said:
1. Again the assumption that everyone MUST want or have a pokemon.

Well, like you said, fishing would probably be dangerous. Having a Pokemon would be some assurance of personal protection, so if, as a lawmaker, I had to give the choice between letting people fish indiscriminately and letting only people who stand a fair chance of not dying horribly, I'd go for the latter, y'know? Of course, that's not to say that a Pokemon would be required... maybe a gun would work too, I guess. Depends on how far guns or other things as weapons have come in a world where things like living-flamethrower Charmander and pals are readily accessible.

And the dangers of fishing would probably have an interesting impact on population trends and all that, what with fishing being a traditional major food source. Ironically, it would probably hit Japan pretty hard.

Still has a better medical system than wilderness.

A medical system is by no means the only manner in which a population could get large enough to get out of control. In fact, most countries with top-notch medical systems (like Europe) are actually facing population stagnation. Birth rates and survival rates are typically the issues you'd look at here. Given that creatures like, say, Buneary, would not only be buggers to get rid of (as I understand it, the assumption is that Pokemon are resistant to most forms of unnatural death, save disease), they'd literally breed like bunnies!

Disease can help control population, but save for some kind of Pokeplague (which even then, wouldn't stop the surviving Pokemon from breeding again and creating the same problems), it's not going to slow down sheer numbers of Pokemon that will have difficulty dying to any cause but disease and old age.

Man, let's just realize that Pokemon would mess everything up already. :p
 
Last edited:

dragoniteKnight

Pose as a team
And lastly, it's unlikely a terrorists would have the capability to devote time and attention to Pokemon whom they consider expendable weapons. A false, temporary display of love wouldn't cut it with Pokemon thanks to their near-human intelligence, which would mean that they could see through the falsehood. Especially if, right from day 1, the trainer takes the Pokemon to a secluded area for constant training. That'd make the Pokemon doubt and somewhat dislike the trainer. And still wouldn't give a damn for their ideologies.

its been stated that pokemon raised by evil people become evil pokemon in both the games and the anime. if you want proof look at i think her name is J's drapion, it had zero problem attacking and atempting to kill ash.
 

DarkMammoth

Lover of silly memes
@The overpopulation debate-

Ignoring people who breed excessively for natures and IVs, most Pokemon appear to only have one egg at a time. We can't really say that there'd be a lot of overpopulation unless we knew every Pokemon's birth and death rate. And if I've taken anything out of Biology, I know a thing or two about population equilibrium. While they are theoretically capable of it, no population can grow exponentially. All sorts of factors end up limiting their growth. Assuming Pokemon have been here the whole time, they would have adapted to their low mortality rate in some way, maybe by having a low birth rate. Or they could overpopulate, reach their limit, have many die off due to starvation or disease, and then overpopulate again. (Assuming we were in modern times, we could also do what we do with deer and give out licenses to hunt them to keep the population in check)

You can't really say it'd be chaotic all the time, because everything has a way of getting to it's equilibrium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top