Are humans technically Pokemon?

[Ramphorynchoid]

Well, assuming ideas like Grimer literally being animated sludge are true, and not something a ten-year-old made up to fill up his Pokedex, then it seems that you don't necessarily have to be descended from a certain common ancestor to be considered a "Pokemon". Maybe it's also possible to sort of lose your "Pokemon-ness" as well? So then perhaps "Pokemon" is more of a way to describe a creature than an actual clade itself. If we go by that logic (which, of course, I made up in ten seconds) it could be more of an opinion on whether humans are Pokemon or not, or we could pass the test or fail based on certain, non-cladistic scientific reasons.

 

[Gengarzilla]

Erm, no. For starters, humans can't breathe fire or shoot electricity...

 

[S.S. Shadow Minun]

Humans aren't Pokémon, although they are living things. Even N isn't Pokémon.

 

[Almonds]

Seeing that humans can become pokemons in the afterlife (Yamask was a human before it died, and Froslass are reincarnated women), doesn't that mean humans are actually some sort of pokemon species in the pokemon world? Except that humans have the weakest elemental power.

Among some humans, there are those with above-average elemental power. Like, Morty is said to have a vision that can see miles away, and Sabrina has psychic powers. Riley/Sir Aaron and Ash can use Aura just like Lucario. So that sort of defines that humans do have 'types' like pokemon, but it only appears in a more 'human' way.

 

[Owain]

No.

They both are different creatures, but there is some overlapping here and there, like Pokémon that used to be people and People who have ''pokémon-like'' powers.

 

[Sneaselz]

The question can be related to our positions as, "Are humans animals?" in which case I would say yes. Humans are a different species of animals just as they could be a different variety of Pokémon.

 

[TheCableGuy]

An Easy way to understand Pokemon (at least, for me it is) is to think of Pokemon as "Forms of Life" as opposed to "animals/plants/rocks/etc."
They are Living entities that (through various means) arose within the Pokemon world.
They do not all share the same origin as we humans think of when we think about life in terms of our concept of Biological Life and it's origin.

So, while Humans can also be defined as a "form of Life," this does not necessarily define them as the same form of life as Pokemon.

Another aspect to the Pokemon world is the question as to whether or not humans actually originated in the Pokemon world to begin with,
Or instead they too have a origin lost to Antiquity of the History of the Pokemon world.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

They do not all share the same origin as we humans think of when we think about life in terms of our concept of Biological Life and it's origin.

This. The topic's question works on the assumption that Pokémon are animals, or a "type of biological life". Which simply can't be without throwing out what many pokémon are.

Pokémon have a diverse variety of origins and very different natures, yet as a whole encompass some common concepts that set them all apart from non-pokemon life.

 

[coolcatkim22]

Here's how I put it with my own strange theory on all of this: Pokemon are the result of what we humans have done 100-150 million years ago...Many animal species were wiped out by us and only the domesticated animals survived hence why so few animals we know exist in the Pokemon World because they evolved into what we know as Pokemon in time.......So also the Pokemon world is like our future in a way...

There is much wrong with what you just said I don't know where to begin.

 

[Zexy]

Come on, Humans don't come from Eggs, evolve, use Moves, have stats.
Pokemon don't change over time...

It can't be! That's it! Pokemon, Humans, Wildlife.... All three live, yet not the same!

 

[Dragonfyre]

I don't think so. The difference between humans and Pokémon is greater than that of real-world humans and animals. In the real world, humans can technically be classified into a class; mammalia, whereas pokéworld humans can't be classified as Bug-type, Fire-type, etc. Maybe Normal-types, but even normal types have elemental powers, which Pokémon world humans don't have, so we can't clearly categorize humans as Normal-types.

 

[S.S. Shadow Minun]

Pokémon are based on living things (like animals, plants), spirituals, inanimate objects, and even more. But humans aren't Pokémon. Even human-like Pokémon aren't really humans.

For example, Pokémon can overcome anything real-life animals and even humans cannot do, and can have rights to possessing spiritual powers (such like Japanese Yōkai).

 

[Almonds]

Yamask are dead people, though

 

[SirOni]

This question seems straightforward at first (answer is no) but upon further elaboration it becomes much more difficult to answer since it's just one part of an all-encompassing question for the franchise concerning the relations between Pokemon and humans. When trying to answer this question we've brought up others such as:
-what is a Pokemon?
-where did they come from?
-where did people come from for that matter?
and so many other questions that are brought up concerning the history of the Pokemon world.

For the moment the simplest thought I can give as an explanation is that Pokemon in existence and function are Youkai. Really that's the best we can do right now considering the origin and culture surrounding the franchise.

 

[TheCableGuy]

Yamask are dead people, though

Actually, that is a far too simplistic and inaccurate description of the origin of Yamask.

When humans die, their spiritual energy is released and is normally dispersed back into the Universe.
But sometimes, under certain circumstances, that energy is not dispersed,
and results in Localized "pockets" of spiritual energy, unable to escape and
very often retaining the memories and emotions from the life it once held
and taking form as a means of maintaining that it's existence and thus it's "survival."

Yamask originally arose as a result of such a Phenomenon.
What the Circumstances of it's creation were that originally gave rise to the first Yamask, We may never know.

But, like Grimer and Koffing, who were born from human toxic waste,
Yamask too was born from the Spiritual waste left behind as a result of death.

 

[Almonds]

What about Froslass? They were women who were lost in mountains.

 

[TheCableGuy]

What about Froslass? They were women who were lost in mountains.

Now we're getting into the question of the Nature of "Ghost-types"
and the Origin of another Pokemon, born of different Circumstances.

Froslass were not born from women lost in the Mountains.
Froslass are evolved from Snorunt. The question is how did Snorunt Originate.

Hypothesis:
Snorunt are "frozen souls," born from lost souls of those who died and became Ice spirits.
Glalie are "Raging" Ice Spirits, trapped in a state of Frigid Pain.
But when Snorunt is exposed to a Dawn stone,
the Spirit of the deceased spirit locked within is "Thawed,"
re-awaking the Spirit within and creating Froslass.

 

[Almonds]

What about Froslass? They were women who were lost in mountains.

Now we're getting into the question of the Nature of "Ghost-types"
and the Origin of another Pokemon, born of different Circumstances.

Froslass were not born from women lost in the Mountains.
Froslass are evolved from Snorunt. The question is how did Snorunt Originate.

Hypothesis:
Snorunt are "frozen souls," born from lost souls of those who died and became Ice spirits.
Glalie are "Raging" Ice Spirits, trapped in a state of Frigid Pain.
But when Snorunt is exposed to a Dawn stone,
the Spirit of the deceased spirit locked within is "Thawed,"
re-awaking the Spirit within and creating Froslass.

Legends in snowy regions say that a woman who was lost on an icy mountain was reborn as Froslass.

I know it's just a legend, but it does indicate that pokemons can be reincarnated as pokemons

 

[TheCableGuy]

Legends in snowy regions say that a woman who was lost on an icy mountain was reborn as Froslass.

I know it's just a legend, but it does indicate that pokemons can be reincarnated as pokemons

Aside from the fact that it's a myth as to the origins of Froslass and thus subject to skepticism,
that wouldn't contradict my Hypothesis, as, at least indirectly, a Froslass that Evolved from a Snorunt
that was born of such a Supernatural Phenomenon still would be a Froslass born of a Lost spirit.
The Myth just forgets to take into account Snorunt (or it purposely leaves reference to it out, assuming it to be obvious.)

Remember, in Pokemon canon, we don't know when or how Myths originate.
It's conceivable that this particular myth arose prior to the people learning that Froslass evolved from Snorunt,
And thought it to be it's own separate species.
Or it's also conceivable that the People confused Froslass with an actual Yuki-onna,
which I don't see why they could not also exist in the Pokemon world,
seeing as we have observed actual Ghosts with-in the Pokemon world.

Either way, the assertion that a Froslass was born directly from a Human brings about certain problems;
Namely that if this Froslass spoken of in the myth sprang directly from a Human,
it would be somehow different then one that evolves from a Snorunt.

BUT! I will entertain the notion that the FIRST Froslass was, in fact, born of a Lost soul,
and, as a result, that Froslass was actually the Progenitor of the entire Snorunt Evolutionary line.
This idea certainly rewrites our concept of Pokemon Evolution,
in that it would be the first recorded instance in which a Final stage of a Pokemon originated naturally prior to to it's pre-evolution,
Much less a "special" evolution stage (evolved by Dawn Stone.)

 

[Almonds]

@TheCableGuy; Yeah, because according to the bible, the lord in the sky didn't create babies first - he created two fully grown adults. Then they gave birth to the upcoming humans. So it's not all that weird that Froslass would've originated first from humans.

That aside, ghosts pokemons seem to have a closer relationship to humans. Like the case of Yamask as well...