Are humans technically Pokemon?

[Flare Blitz]

Are humans technically their own Pokemon species in the Pokemon world? Maybe they just don't classify themselves as Pokemon the same way we don't classify ourselves as animals, even though we technically are. Perhaps humans were the dominant species of the Pokemon world and had an advance intelligence far greater than other Pokemon, that they were able to control them? There are a lot of humanoid Pokemon and humans could be closely related to them. Pokemon weren't even referred to as Pokemon (Pocket Monsters) until Pokeballs were invented. There's even a book in the Canalave Library that mentions there was a time period where humans and Pokemon were considered to be one and the same.

 

[NoirGrimoir]

Well it's implied that pokemon came from space while presumably humans came from earth so...I'm going to say not. Also, all pokemon learn the same attacks at the same levels while humans don't have levels and don't all learn the same skills/attacks automatically at an appropriate level. In the sense that they are alive and presumably carbon-based there's a possibility that a very very long time ago they originated from the same organism or scrap of pseudo-proteins floating around in gas clouds in space, but eh...pokemon just straight seem to have their own mystical powers and abilities that humans can't touch. That leads me to think there is a significant enough difference to classify them as something else, just as fungi and plants are classified differently even though at first glance they seem similar.

 

[Cybersai]

Humans are what we are like, whereas the Pokemon are the actual animals.

In the pokemon world however, humans probably didn't evolve from apes.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

Are trees Pokémon? Are the rocks Pokémon?

If you answer quickly no to those, why should it be different with humans, when there exist pokémon not only that are animals, but also plants and non-living things?


And that is the same reason I believe there have to be normal animals around, or at least had to. Not everything is a pokémon, the same way not all pokémon are animals.

 

[S.S. Shadow Minun]

Humans aren't Pokémon, although they are also living things. Pokémon can be either living things like animals and plants, or spirits of organisms, or non-living things.

Are trees Pokémon?

Sudowoodo and Roselia are examples of plant-based Pokémon. Trees are plants, and therefore they are living things like humans and animals.

Are the rocks Pokémon?

That's weird question. Nosepass will stomp you under his feet.

 

[Pratkun]

In the pokemon world however, humans probably didn't evolve from apes.

That's what I originally thought and that is the most relevant hypothesis. Humans did not evolve from any animal (or Pokémon) at all. In the Pokémon world Humans are also Pokémon but they have the ability to speak languages to communicate easier with each other. Like how Meowth learned how to speak the human language, humans are indirectly Pokémon.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

Are trees Pokémon?

Sudowoodo and Roselia are examples of plant-based Pokémon. Trees are plants, and therefore they are living things like humans and animals.

Are the rocks Pokémon?

That's weird question. Nosepass will stomp you under his legs.

Those are questions (for which the answer is a simply "no") I made to drive my point further. I am not reffering to pokémon that are plants, but as the plantlife everywhere that clearly aren't pokémon, to give an example of clear and blatant non-pokémon life, that DOES get exposition. (From just the forests to even how there are catalogued different berries you collect and make grow)

I exaggerated the point bringing up rocks, to also show an example of pokémon deriving from non-living things. Separating even further the need to associate animals (and therefore humans) with pokémon.

 

[Fandango]

Animals are known to live within the Pokémon world, meaning that Mammals exist. Humans are mammals. Pokémon and human are completely different species.

 

[PrettyVenomoth]

humans hold no relation to pokemon unless its an ancient one that dates back a long time ago longer than humans realtion with apes, since the poke humans hold no characteristics of the pokemon on similaritys what so ever infact the pokemon are actually pretty superior to the humans they posses powers humans could only dream of aprat from being smarter possibly but are humans really smarter? pokemon can understand human speech and pull of comands in battle humans dont have a clue what pokemon are saying this suggest pokemon are infact the smarters beings as well as the more powerfulll ones, lets imagine pokemon were real for a second with all the people trying to take advantage of pokemon they would probably revolt the legendarys would just rain down leveling every city on the planet, humans would stand no chance Pokemon would take there place as the superior and dominate species humans would infact be the lesser beings free to live with pokemon but definatly not superior or apart of them

 

[Flare Blitz]

I like how no one addressed any of my points. Canon says they were even considered one and the same.

There once were Pokémon that
became very close to humans.
There once were humans and Pokémon
that ate together at the same table.
It was a time when there existed no
differences to distinguish the two.

Are trees Pokémon? Are the rocks Pokémon?

Okay, now that's just a ridiculous comparison. Rocks aren't even living and trees are plants, not animals. Yes, there are Pokemon based on rocks and plants, but those are still animal-like creatures. Perhaps some guise as plants and rocks for the sake of camouflage? Humans are animals, so I don't see how it's far-fetched to suppose that humans are Pokemon.

Well it's implied that pokemon came from space while presumably humans came from earth so...I'm going to say not.

Only certain Pokemon are implied to originate from space, not all.

Also, all pokemon learn the same attacks at the same levels while humans don't have levels and don't all learn the same skills/attacks automatically at an appropriate level.

I doubt Pokemon actually have "levels", that's probably just a gameplay aspect that doesn't mean anything.

Humans are what we are like, whereas the Pokemon are the actual animals.

But humans are actual animals.

Animals are known to live within the Pokémon world, meaning that Mammals exist. Humans are mammals. Pokémon and human are completely different species.

First of all, why are you claiming that "real" animals exist in the Pokemon world? The references to real animals were exclusive the first generation, likely due to mistakes or the fact there weren't Pokemon versions of those animals at the time. There are no current references to real animals. Second, many Pokemon themselves are of different species. Dogs and humans are of different species, but they're both animals. Pokemon and humans could be classified the in the same kingdom of life.

 

[NoirGrimoir]

Your first quote in no way implies humans and pokemon were once the same. It seems clear to me that they mean they were 'treated' the same, rather than being the same species. It says right at the beginning that there were once 'pokemon' who became close to 'humans'. As in familiarly not genetically. If they originated from the same species they wouldn't grow close to humans, they'd have begun close and drifted away.

Taxanomically, humans are technically animals. Animals and plants however are not related enough to call them the same thing. The same with animals or plants and fungi or bacteria. Pokemon can resemble animals, plants, fungi, even inanimate objects. If that doesn't make Pokemon as a whole uniquely different from animals such as humans, I don't know what does.

 

[Fandango]

Animals are known to live within the Pokémon world, meaning that Mammals exist. Humans are mammals. Pokémon and human are completely different species.

First of all, why are you claiming that "real" animals exist in the Pokemon world? The references to real animals were exclusive the first generation, likely due to mistakes or the fact there weren't Pokemon versions of those animals at the time. There are no current references to real animals. Second, many Pokemon themselves are of different species. Dogs and humans are of different species, but they're both animals. Pokemon and humans could be classified the in the same kingdom of life.

Animals in the Pokémon world - Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia

They exist in the anime universe, so they exist. Whether they're present right now or not. Animals are canon, and that's that. And like I said, we're animals and they're Pokémon.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

Yes, there are Pokemon based on rocks and plants, but those are still animal-like creatures. Perhaps some guise as plants and rocks for the sake of camouflage? Humans are animals, so I don't see how it's far-fetched to suppose that humans are Pokemon.

That they are animals camouflaging is blatantly disregarding the very nature of many pokémon.
Grimer, for instance, is literally living sludge. Magneton are machines. Victreebel is a plant. Spiritomb is a stone with a dark magic vortex coming from it. And Porygon is a computer program.

Why should I think a giant carnivorous plant would be an animal and not... a giant carnivorous plant? Why can't it just be that?

If anything, they are things that could be thought of as "animals" due to that being the easiest reference pool for a creature, but that doesn't make them as such that merely "also look like other things", it means the opposite.


Furthemore, in the end remember they are "magical creatures", literally monsters, with an inherent supernatural ability that all sort of fantasy creatures that pokémon are (golems, dragons, spirits, whatever) have.

So okay, let's try a different question then: Would a Golem, summoned from clay, animated through some sort of inherent and sentient magic, be an animal? Because that's exactly what Golurk is.

 

[coolcatkim22]

No, I think humans are animals. With the way evolution works there's no way humans would have evolved from Pokemon. Not only would a Pokemon that evolved into a creature with no special powers be more vulnerable and thus not take that route, but the odds of any creature remotely resembling a human being having evolved from anything other then what we evolved from is astronomical.

I think it's far more likely that the Pokemon world is like our earth only it happens to have Pokemon who have evolved along side other life on the planet.

 

[Zistal]

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...n-39-s-burning-questions.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

Q: In the same way humans in our world are a type of animal, are humans in the Pokémon world a form of Pokémon?

Masuda: Humans are definitely separate from Pokémon. The way you think about it is different than how we think about animals in relation to humans on Earth. For example, on Earth we have mammals and reptiles all these different categories. In the world of Pokémon, they are all Pokémon. We don’t really categorize them in exactly that way. It’s kind of a different way of looking at it. So yeah, humans are definitely separate from Pokémon. For example, humans can’t learn four different moves like a Pokémon can.

Case closed.

 

[The Outrage]

Pok

Q: In the same way humans in our world are a type of animal, are humans in the Pokémon world a form of Pokémon?

Masuda: Humans are definitely separate from Pokémon. The way you think about it is different than how we think about animals in relation to humans on Earth. For example, on Earth we have mammals and reptiles all these different categories. In the world of Pokémon, they are all Pokémon. We don’t really categorize them in exactly that way. It’s kind of a different way of looking at it. So yeah, humans are definitely separate from Pokémon. For example, humans can’t learn four different moves like a Pokémon can.

Case closed.

Are there worker Pokémon in the world of Pokémon? Are there swaths of Pikachus powering a city?
Masuda: Pokémon as creatures, are much closer to – they’re not like how our pets are on Earth – they’re much closer to humans than they are to like a cat or a dog pet that we would keep on Earth. Because there is such a closer relationship between humans and Pokémon, most people in the Pokémon world probably wouldn’t want to use Pokémon in such a manner as making them work to do something. But, there are some people with bad ideals, or bad people in the Pokémon world who might try to do something like that.

And yet in the very first generation, we see a Machop helping with construction, Lt. Surge talking about how his Pokemon helped power his plane, and in Gen II, we find out bird Pokemon are used to deliver mail, and in Gen III, we do see that Pokemon get employed to do real jobs. Oh, and let's not forget how we use Pokemon for transportation (e.g., Surf, Fly) and clearing obstacles (e.g., Strength, Cut, Rock Smash). And these Pokemon aren't treated badly, nor are the people who do this necessarily "bad" (unless you ask N)

Clearly what Masuda was saying doesn't reflect the reality presented in the games.

Slightly more on topic, while Masuda claims that humans and Pokemon are separate, the Sinnoh Folk Tales allude to a time where humans and Pokemon may have been viewed as one and the same in-game.

There once were Pokémon that became very close to humans.
There once were humans and Pokémon that ate together at the same table.
It was a time when there existed no differences to distinguish the two.

I had commented on the Pokemon World's mythology reflecting the an overarching theme of how world views have changed from humans and Pokemon living in harmony to humans dominating Pokemon...something touched on by N. It's kind of ironic that Masuda takes on the position that humans are fundamentally different from Pokemon given the themes that the last games were trying to portray. The separation of humans and Pokemon or the domination of Pokemon by humans--both N and Ghetsis' goal basically view humans and Pokemon as incompatible. The entire game, we fought to show humans and Pokemon can coexist. Many legends before this allude to that.

If the new "bond" feature in XY is anything like linking in Conquest, then I have even bigger doubts as to how different humans and Pokemon are.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

The way I see that...
They are the same in spirit, but they are different creatures.

The whole plot of BW was that different things should cohexist and work together. And so is what ancient legends try to say. "One and the same" is that despite they being different they share so many things they're treated as such.


The working question seems to be about forcing pokémon for work (i.e. pikachu energy), however the ones that are used for working might be better said to be "employed".
We haven't seen a pokémon not preassumbly enjoying what they do, after all.


That said, despite being different types of creature, saying that "pokémon are closest to humans than to anything else" is probably true.
After all, I do have a theory that some humans, or at least an ancestor, became pokémon as well. (And in one case it's canon)

 

[coolcatkim22]

I don't think you can use interviews as evidence. I mean, every time I tried to do that I was told by people that the only things that apply in the Pokemon game universe are things that are in the games, so I don't think anything Masuda says really counts.

 

[MegaCharr]

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...

So after ya ya blah blah blah of my own talking and theory's...Yea,I think so in a way but im going to leave it as that since I clearly don't understand how Masuda has anything to do with this.

 

[Helioptile]

N: "Wait, humans are Pokemon? THAT explains a lot about my past."