DISCUSSION: Meat in settings with sentient Pokémon

[canisaries]

Ooh boy, this is gonna be a long and tricky one.

When I first wrote stories with sentient and talking Pokémon, I gave no thought to the question of how meat production was handled in that world, if at all. However, as I started taking my stories more seriously and developing a world with both human and Pokémon citizens, this question arose again, now with far more bearing. I've mostly managed to avoid addressing it for now, but behind the scenes I've tried hard to come up with a sensible solution or at least a kind-of-believable one so that the setting doesn't absolutely collapse on itself.

For now, I've had my world go vegetarian. This has eliminated the main ethical issue, but brought forth a lot of other problems, some of which I'll list here.
- When did the world go vegetarian? (It can't have been so since the beginning and turned out so similar to our meat-eating society, and it can't have been an instantaneous change.)
- How much of the world really sticks to vegetarianism? (Not everyone likes change, even if there are laws to enforce it.)
- Do people really substitute all of their meat with limited vegetarian protein sources?
- What do sentient carnivorous Pokémon eat?
- Are savage wild Pokémon considered edible, and by how much of the population?
- How are eggs, milk, wool and/or leather produced? (I can't go back and edit those out to retcon the world to be full-blown vegan, it'd take way too long and need way too much explaining.) Do bird Pokémon sell their unfertilized eggs for money? Do Miltank sell their milk and Mareep their wool? Is leather harvested from the dead, similar to how organs are from cadavers that have consented?
- If I let real life invertebrates, small fish and amphibians exist for the sake of a slightly more believable ecosystem, how many of these problems can it solve?
- With the biotechnology the Pokémon world has (Mewtwo, Type:Null, etc), is there artificial (cell-farmed) meat? Are people willing to eat it?

(For context on how I've made "wild" Pokémon work in my world, here's some explanation in a spoiler tag. This is absolutely not mandatory to read for the thread, it's just to explain why certain points above are phrased how they are.)

Spoiler: skippable rambling

All Pokémon, as they are born, have the potential for sentience. What decides if a mon will turn out wild or sentient is a crucial development period early on in a mon's life. If a mon in this stage spends enough time among civilized creatures and learns from them, they develop sentience and intelligence much like humans do. If this period goes by without enough contact to intelligent beings, the mon grows up as not much more than an animal. Mon still retain some potential after this, but it's very limited.

There exist both sentient and feral colonies in the wild, but the latter is much more prevalent. Scarcity of food also raises the chances of a mon growing up feral.

The problems I've listed above are ones that have been most relevant to my setting, but they may offer something to think about for yours, too. How have you solved or attempted to solve these questions? Have you addressed them in your stories and are you planning to? Are all Pokémon species as intelligent? There are naturally also lots of questions about the ethics of Pokéballs and battling, but that seems like a topic for another thread.

I'd appreciate it if this thread didn't get answers like "maybe you shouldn't have included sentient Pokémon, then", because those aren't going to help. Hindsight is 20/20, we know. Furthermore, I know consumption of animal-based products in real life can be the source of pretty fervent arguments, but I ask that we keep discussion civil, respectful and for the sake of the thread, mostly Pokémon-related.

 

[lucarioknight56]

Well, in my PMD universe, there is a cross between sentient and savage Pokemon--and, of course, no humans. Part of my way of handling this is with my Singular Species rule: if a Pokemon has sentience, there is no savage counterpart, and vice versa. For example, I have depicted Pikipek as wild birds with no form of speech or advanced intelligence; you will never see a Toucannon owning a business or anything else a civilized Pokemon would do. This includes Pokemon like Tauros, Miltank, and most undersea Pokemon unable to traverse land. I'd say that there's roughly a 50/50 split between wild and civilized in this universe, but I've never made a formal list.

As for how I handle meat-eating or production...well, I haven't actually written about it yet. In Unequivocant, there aren't many wild Pokemon left, save for birds and the occasional pack animal. I'll be able to explore this more in my future project, PMD: Twilit Destinies, but right now, I'd imagine there would be more hesitance to eat Pokemon save for a certain few, as fruits and vegetables are the preferred food source. Even carnivorous Pokemon adapted to this change in diet, but they'd have more of a liking to meat than herbivorous or omnivorous.

So yeah, considering I have a fantasy sort of setting, civilized Pokemon would domesticate certain species of savage Pokemon and use them to their benefit, like selling Moomoo Milk, or Mareep wool, or even Tauros leather. I've already shown fish to be perfectly fine to eat, even if in the human universe (which is connected to my PMD universe), there is definitely more of a hesitancy thanks to competitive battling nd the mindset that all Pokemon can be pets. But meat consumption is there to an extent with select species.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Nice thread, Canis. This is such an important worldbuilding question and yet I've rarely seen much mention of it outside my private groupchats where I babble about possible solutions in my own setting. Also, I like your idea about how raising pokémon in society instils sapience in them, it's a nice compromise that solves a lot of problems, even if it's a bit implausible.

Regarding your questions, Canis, I have some notes to follow!

- When did the world go vegetarian? — This is the trickiest one, since there's no good answer.
- How much of the world really sticks to vegetarianism? — Probably there's portions of society that are vegan, veggie and soft-veggie (i.e. they eat non-sapient fish or whatever), and then perhaps fewer than one in ten will have any amount of socially contentious meat at any appreciable rate.
- Do people really substitute all of their meat with limited vegetarian protein sources? — if there was sufficient economic demand, there would be plenty of readily available protein foods. This isn't a real problem.
- What do sentient carnivorous Pokémon eat? — small animals? Other pokémon and they're fine with it? If they're obligate carnivores, it's not like they have much choice. Of course if there's enough demand, then there will be enterprises to provide edible substitutes even for them.
- Are savage wild Pokémon considered edible, and by how much of the population? — I reckon it would probably be taboo to eat potentially sapient beings. The whole "that could have been my relative" issue. You'll get some who don't take issue with it, of course.
- How are eggs, milk, wool and/or leather produced? — if there are non-sapient animals or pokémon and the regulations on livestock welfare are good, then it will probably be socially acceptable to run dairy industries and suchlike. I do love the idea of sapient birds selling their eggs at the local egg exchange. Or hell, giving them to their human cohabitants. Leather is probably a much rarer good than in our world.
- If I let real life invertebrates, small fish and amphibians exist for the sake of a slightly more believable ecosystem, how many of these problems can it solve? — That could do an enormous amount to relieve plausibility pressures, for sure.
- Is there synthetic meat? Are people willing to eat it? — The pokémon world seems pretty pro-tech, and lab-grown meat is on the path to becoming a widespread good in our world, I'm certain. Therefore I feel like this is a afe bet. Might help explain the vegetarian revolution, too. Maybe vegetarianism took off when pokéballs did because synth-meat was developed contemporaneously.

As for my setting, in Different Eyes there are non-pokémon animals in existence that provide a lot of biomass for consumption by humans and pokémon, but in addition to that, human society never developed quite the same insistence on regular meat consumption that ours did. However, humans can and do eat certain pokémon. The livestock industry mainly produces meat from "appropriate" species rather than, say, pokémon that resemble humans or that are popular as pets. Nevertheless, it's just not controversial to eat fish or bird or ruminant pokémon in this world. It is possible that with the development of pokémorphs, the future might look a little differently.

 

[diamondpearl876]

Potentially unpopular opinion incoming.

I'm not sure the issues of sentient/sapient Pokémon in fanfic stray as far from the real world as most think. There's been plenty of research that's said animals are sentient and/or sapient, including but not limited to chimpanzees, whales, and some species of birds. And, to differentiate, sentience is the ability to feel emotions and perceive your surroundings, which any animal does when they believe they're in danger or when they fiercely protect their offspring. Dogs are also pretty known for exhibiting stress and sadness when their owners are gone, or being able to perceive when their owner is sad and then acting accordingly. Sapience is related more to intelligence and the ability to adapt/learn... which is also possible. A dog can be trained for special needs, or even just learning the command to sit is an example of this. Parrots can be trained to speak English words and full sentences, and can be trained to do simple math equations and find hidden items. Now, the the level of an animal's sentience/sapience might often be compared to that of a human child, but it still exists nonetheless.

The main differences for Pokémon seem to be: a language barrier, the complexity of thought, and how animals don't necessarily have the capacity to build a civilization like humans have, which... Pokémon are often depicted in ways that bridge the gap for all of these differences.

Are those differences enough for me to go into the details of how meat and vegetarian options and all that work in my own fics? Not really, unless it becomes super relevant for some reason. Humans are the most sentient and sapient animals on earth. We eat species that aren't at all unfamiliar to us, and I think there's more awareness recently on how meat production is kinda terrible and unethical. Yet we usually eat without a second thought anyway. Instincts win out more often than not, no matter what.

I do utilize a similar method to yours, @canisaries, in which all 'mon are born with the potential for full sentience and sapience, and their upbringing effects how much that potential is fleshed out. I tend to treat evolution as an increase in sentience/sapience, much like a child is simply incapable of achieving their full potential until their adult brains/bodies are finished growing. (Also, let me know if you think I went too off topic here for what you intended the thread to be.)

I also rather like @Sike Saner's interpretation of this topic, where all 'mon are fully sentient/sapient and hunt other 'mon simply because they have no choice. Solonn's a character in particular that puts off eating as long as possible out of guilt for hurting fellow 'mon.

 

[Twilight-Kun]

Simple, have pokémon specifically raised for meat, and then have them absolutely enjoy the prospect of being slaughtered

"Oh joyous day! It's my turn for the slaughterhouse!"
"Lucky! May your body and spirit give strength to all whom consume it!"

The humans would of course be ignorant because they're working minimum wage and the world at large wouldn't care because that's just the way things have always been

 

[Ereshkigal]

Ooh boy, this is gonna be a long and tricky one.

It is a tricky one. Particularly if you go with a world that is similar to Earth. Vegetarianism doesn't really work well in quite a few ecosystems, due to varying reasons. It would be far better to have the setting on a much warmer, more tropical planet than Earth. But, to answer your questions...

- When did the world go vegetarian? (It can't have been so since the beginning and turned out so similar to our meat-eating society, and it can't have been an instantaneous change.)

We're probably talking thirty or forty years ago, at most. Artificial fertilizers are necessary for this to even be remotely viable without having yearly massive e. coli (or whatever disease is the equivalent) epidemics.

- How much of the world really sticks to vegetarianism? (Not everyone likes change, even if there are laws to enforce it.)

Maybe 30%? 40% with enough greenhouses? It's practically impossible for much of the Arctic, large swaths of Africa, and a few other areas on the planet. In particular, thanks to the Dust Bowl, the United States (or your setting's equivalent) is incapable of it just due to the fertilizer load that would be necessary; the run-off from the fertilizers, whether natural or artificial, would create an ecological disaster several magnitudes worse than the one the nation is already potentially facing.

- Do people really substitute all of their meat with limited vegetarian protein sources?

No. For one thing, the ones covering what meat does cover would quickly become expensive; there are certain vitamins that are not as easily replicated via plant sources. Basically, malnutrition is going to be a big problem (but, then, it's a big problem in real life as well; the expense of fresh fruits is causing scurvy to be even worse than it was in the past).

- What do sentient carnivorous Pokémon eat?

Pokemon.

- Are savage wild Pokémon considered edible, and by how much of the population?

Most likely yes, and probably ranging from 20% to 60% of the population depending on culture.

- How are eggs, milk, wool and/or leather produced? (I can't go back and edit those out to retcon the world to be full-blown vegan, it'd take way too long and need way too much explaining.) Do bird Pokémon sell their unfertilized eggs for money? Do Miltank sell their milk and Mareep their wool? Is leather harvested from the dead, similar to how organs are from cadavers that have consented?

Same way as real life, only substitute Pokemon for the real-life animals. I bet the bird Pokemon are not asked, and neither are the Miltanks or Mareep. Nor do I think permission would be asked to make leather. Even many real-life societies who held animals as sacred didn't really do much asking of the animals' opinions before killing them and harvesting their bodies for resources; I seriously doubt Pokemon would be treated any differently.

- If I let real life invertebrates, small fish and amphibians exist for the sake of a slightly more believable ecosystem, how many of these problems can it solve?

Not a single one. They also raise even more questions and introduce even more problems.

- With the biotechnology the Pokémon world has (Mewtwo, Type:Null, etc), is there artificial (cell-farmed) meat? Are people willing to eat it?

Probably not, just due to the question of who you would be eating.

The problems I've listed above are ones that have been most relevant to my setting, but they may offer something to think about for yours, too. How have you solved or attempted to solve these questions? Have you addressed them in your stories and are you planning to? Are all Pokémon species as intelligent? There are naturally also lots of questions about the ethics of Pokéballs and battling, but that seems like a topic for another thread.

"Are all pokemon intelligent" is really the wrong question to ask. There are a lot of animals that show human-level intelligence, including ones we keep as pets or eat for food. Better to ask their capacity to use complex reasoning (though, admittedly, there are many humans who would fail such a test).

 

[canisaries]

Even many real-life societies who held animals as sacred didn't really do much asking of the animals' opinions before killing them and harvesting their bodies for resources; I seriously doubt Pokemon would be treated any differently.

But you see, the problem with Pokémon that have sentient cousins is that those sentient cousins can crash your farm and destroy it. Being powerful creatures, it's gonna take a hell of a military force to take them on.

Not a single one. They also raise even more questions and introduce even more problems.

Such as...? Last I checked, invertebrates were a great source of protein and fish were very popular in food - and excluding octopuses and their relatives, both are very, very dumb. If I had to choose between tofu and sardine, guess what I would pick.

Probably not, just due to the question of who you would be eating.

I thought your take on this was that most people were a-ok with eating Pokémon flesh? Why is it a question of "who" suddenly, if Pokémon aren't people? People IRL who say they would refuse cell-farmed meat on an ideological level usually explain their opinion by saying it's "unnatural" or that it's wrong to eat animal flesh in any context.

There are a lot of animals that show human-level intelligence, including ones we keep as pets or eat for food. Better to ask their capacity to use complex reasoning (though, admittedly, there are many humans who would fail such a test).

The Pokémon "sentience" I talk about in my post is Pokémon being walking, talking citizens of society.

"Human-level" intelligence for real life animals is a titanic reach. First of all, that "capacity to use complex reasoning" is part of intelligence - the ability to understand why things happen, the ability to create complex tools and inventions, the ability to understand that your peers may think differently from you, the ability to understand abstraction - concepts such as big vs. small, same vs. different and yourself eventually dying. Animals we farm or keep as pets, say dogs or pigs, are said to have a a few-year-old child's intelligence at best. If you want to be technical then yes, children are humans, but so are babies. The point is that the animals never reach the level of a full-grown human or even adolescents.

Apes, considered to be among the most intelligent, are unable to ask questions. Alex the Parrot, a very clever specimen in terms of communication and abstraction, has been the only animal that you could technically argue asked a question - he pointed at his reflection and asked "what color", a question his caretakers would often ask for him as a task, and from the answer learned the word "gray".

The people that are unable to mentally mature past four years old are considered heavily disabled. Your funny little jab at stupid people doesn't work here.

It is true that we don't yet fully know the extent of animal intelligence due to difficult communication, but we do know that you can try to raise a dog or pig as an animal-shaped human and it won't work.

 

[Ereshkigal]

But you see, the problem with Pokémon that have sentient cousins is that those sentient cousins can crash your farm and destroy it. Being powerful creatures, it's gonna take a hell of a military force to take them on.

That's assuming the farm in question doesn't use the ones who lack that mental capacity as defense. The interesting thing about a Pokeverse is that when the creatures themselves are involved, humans tend to be heavily armed with creatures of their own.

Such as...? Last I checked, invertebrates were a great source of protein and fish were very popular in food - and excluding octopuses and their relatives, both are very, very dumb. If I had to choose between tofu and sardine, guess what I would pick.

Such as how those animals survive in a world where Pokemon exist. A frog with no pokemon abilities trying to eat a beedrill is going to have a very nasty surprise unleashed on it.

Also, the problem with them as a protein source is an issue of supply. In the real world, with our protein heavily dependent upon large land animals and certain birds, the amount of fish we do eat has severely threatened the world's fish with extinction and forced evolutionary changes to make them smaller so we're less likely to eat them; there's actually some talk about reducing humanity's dependence upon water-dwelling animals for our diet just to make certain enough species survive. Increasing the dependence upon them and adding a great dependence upon amphibians should simply drive both groups of animals straight into extinction.

Basically, if you're basing this on Earth, you should have a global extinction event going on far worse than the one happening in real life, with humanity itself being part of the great die-off. This is why I suggest using a planet very unlike Earth as your basis.

I thought your take on this was that most people were a-ok with eating Pokémon flesh? Why is it a question of "who" suddenly, if Pokémon aren't people? People IRL who say they would refuse cell-farmed meat on an ideological level usually explain their opinion by saying it's "unnatural" or that it's wrong to eat animal flesh in any context.

People in real life eat bacon and other pork products in massive amounts, yet many would feel uncomfortable eating a pet pig or eating a pig they knew could talk. Despite being okay with eating pokemon, the idea of cell-farmed meat would inevitably produce a question of if the pokemon source was one that was sentient or one that was not, and nothing the companies raising the meat could say would ever settle the debate (after all, companies in real life do have a history of outright lying or even falsifying science to cover a misdeed).

The Pokémon "sentience" I talk about in my post is Pokémon being walking, talking citizens of society.

"Human-level" intelligence for real life animals is a titanic reach. First of all, that "capacity to use complex reasoning" is part of intelligence - the ability to understand why things happen, the ability to create complex tools and inventions, the ability to understand that your peers may think differently from you, the ability to understand abstraction - concepts such as big vs. small, same vs. different and yourself eventually dying. Animals we farm or keep as pets, say dogs or pigs, are said to have a a few-year-old child's intelligence at best. If you want to be technical then yes, children are humans, but so are babies. The point is that the animals never reach the level of a full-grown human or even adolescents.

Apes, considered to be among the most intelligent, are unable to ask questions. Alex the Parrot, a very clever specimen in terms of communication and abstraction, has been the only animal that you could technically argue asked a question - he pointed at his reflection and asked "what color", a question his caretakers would often ask for him as a task, and from the answer learned the word "gray".

Crows and other corvids have, in testing, proven capable of solving complex, multi-step problems that require abstract reasoning. Octopi have also been repeatedly shown to have similar complex problem-solving skills, as well as the concept of spite and the capability to let known a grievance about food in a manner easily understood by humans. Cats have been shown to use a specific meow for humans when their own range of communication is far greater, indicating an understanding that humans do not actually understand much of how they communicate. Elephants have been shown to have complex-enough reasoning to differentiate between different groups of humans, even down to telling apart different tribes in the same region (they also apparently think we're cute). And then there's dolphins, who we're not going to go much into because they are basically pure evil and there are topics I won't discuss on this site.

Plenty of animals show human-level capacity for complex reasoning. It's occurring to science that the reason we didn't notice this before is because we were asking the wrong questions, not because it wasn't actually there.

The people that are unable to mentally mature past four years old are considered heavily disabled. Your funny little jab at stupid people doesn't work here.

I was not discussing the mentally disabled. I work in a career that involves customer service. You might be surprised how many people I've met are medical doctors that do not understand the most basic concepts of infection control.

It is true that we don't yet fully know the extent of animal intelligence due to difficult communication, but we do know that you can try to raise a dog or pig as an animal-shaped human and it won't work.

What makes you think that raising a pokemon as an animal-shaped human will work? Just because they have the same level of sentience does not mean they have the same instincts, the same basic reasoning (basic reasoning varies massively in humans too), same viewpoint of the world (a psychic type likely sees the world very differently from a normal type due to psychic powers), or even the same method of processing data. Even in senses that are shared, different ranges of those senses would produce different data inputs; a creature that sees into ultraviolet would think of humans as a species with stripes, which would confuse a human when asked about the patterns on their skin that they are not aware exist. All of these are going to inform perspective, and produce a creature that, even if it understands humans and can empathize with them, will still be very much not human.

So, the question is... Are you writing sentient pokemon, or are you writing pokemon-shaped humans? If the second, I can understand why these answers would surprise you, and I can admit some of what I had to say does not apply.

 

[Beth Pavell]

There's a really big leap between marvelling at a crow's cleverness and being prepared to roast one up that can speak to you with a fully-formed language. People almost always come up with justifications for doing particularly horrible things to each other, which are relatively rare when animals are involved. Even then, it's telling that people almost never eat other people for food, and try their level best to pretend it never happened when it does.

That being said, it's not an apt to compare real-world farming techniques to Pokémon on a 1:1 basis, not without considering how pokémon themselves could be used. Could they be used more efficiently in place of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, etc.

 

[Ereshkigal]

I know that, in real life, part of what makes artificial fertilizers necessary is not enough sources of natural fertilizer. We could go all-natural on fertilizer, but not without increasing our cattle herds quite a bit.

While you could potentially use pokemon for it, it comes with the problem that doing this on the industrial scale like we do in real life would require a lot of pokemon and all of the necessary support mechanisms for them (such as producing food for them to eat).

Fire types would probably be the most useful, since you can use their fire abilities to produce large quantities of ash for use as fertilizer without nearly the same resource cost as relying upon traditional fertilizers. But you're also increasing carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide releases into the atmosphere by very large amounts. There would need to be serious work to mitigate this.

I admit I tend to look toward how we do it in real life because it's easier to explain and doesn't require quite as many questions answered. Notably, all I have to say is "rich people thought it would be more profitable" and that's pretty much explanation enough (this is the real life reason behind both the dominance of the internal combustion engine and why we used direct current electricity early on).

 

[Glitchipedia]

I prefer to go the simple route of presenting a hybrid world in which both Pokémon and real animals coexist, so meat comes from the same sources as it does in the real world. That said, some references to the consumption of Pokémon meat may remain where logical, particularly if the issue of the price of foreign-imported meat should arise (since real animals are presumably rare in the Pokémon nation).

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Vegetarianism doesn't really work well in quite a few ecosystems, due to varying reasons.

Your reasons are interesting and somewhat legitimate, but they assume that the human population and carrying capacity of the earth are the same in Canis' pokémon fiction as in our world. In a setting where pokémon have always existed, might the human population simply not be as high, or the carrying capacity of the Earth be much higher due to whatever fantasy reasons?

I seriously doubt Pokemon would be treated any differently.

You don't think that if your food source could speak fluent English you'd consider treating them differently to livestock in our world?

Probably not, just due to the question of who you would be eating.

I am quite certain that synthetic meat would not be thought of as a "who" by a population that, as you suggest, are happy to consume potentially sapient beings anyway.

There are a lot of animals that show human-level intelligence, including ones we keep as pets or eat for food. Better to ask their capacity to use complex reasoning (though, admittedly, there are many humans who would fail such a test).

You seem to have indicated in later posts that by "human level intelligence" you don't necessarily mean that animals have the full suite of cognitive sophistication that we do. However, I hope you now see why people might think you meant animals exist that are exactly as smart and sapient as humans. Which, of course, there aren't.

Such as how those animals survive in a world where Pokemon exist. A frog with no pokemon abilities trying to eat a beedrill is going to have a very nasty surprise unleashed on it.

Frogs would survive by not trying to eat giant bug-types larger than they are, but by instead preying on ordinary flies and suchlike. Pokémon could theoretically outcompete animals with similar ecological niches, but there are almost no pokémon that would compete with small insects and amphibians for their actual food sources. Beedrill and mundane frogs would probably rarely interact.

Plenty of animals show human-level capacity for complex reasoning.

Plenty of animals can sometimes demonstrate complex reasoning as applied to specific tasks that is comparable with what we usually think of as 'human level' thought, but no animals are capable of actual human sapience. By this I don't mean 'using rocks to raise the water level in a container to obtain food', I mean uniquely human developments such as machinery, writing, music, philosophy, surgery, and so on. Maybe some animals can solve puzzles, some can build structures, some can have culture, some can take slaves, and some can vote. No single species besides us can do all those things. No other animal besides us cooks their food. No other animal has built a space station. No other animal posts on the internet.

What makes you think that raising a pokemon as an animal-shaped human will work?

Pokémon are fantasy creatures, and as writers of prose fiction we can make up whatever rules we like for them, including "raising a pokémon among humans results in PMD-style talking pokémon without any issues." Any objections on the basis of realism are irrelevant. One may as well argue to the design teams for the earliest pokémon products that the various fantastic properties of the creatures are absurd and break the laws of physics.

That being said, it's not an apt to compare real-world farming techniques to Pokémon on a 1:1 basis, not without considering how pokémon themselves could be used. Could they be used more efficiently in place of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, etc.

Not only could the magical abilities of grass-type pokémon accommodate for a lot, but the pokémon setting as presented to us has both fantastic naturally-occurring plants such as the various special berries, and fantastic technological developments.

 

[Ereshkigal]

Your reasons are interesting and somewhat legitimate, but they assume that the human population and carrying capacity of the earth are the same in Canis' pokémon fiction as in our world. In a setting where pokémon have always existed, might the human population simply not be as high, or the carrying capacity of the Earth be much higher due to whatever fantasy reasons?

I noted early on I was assuming real-world Earth for my comments. And several times suggested not using real-world Earth for precisely all of the problems I note.

You don't think that if your food source could speak fluent English you'd consider treating them differently to livestock in our world?

I would like to say I would, but I honestly can't say for certain that there would be a difference. And it's not for lack of trying to come up with a different answer.

But, honestly? I think it would be the same, simply because most people are simply too-removed from their food sources.

I am quite certain that synthetic meat would not be thought of as a "who" by a population that, as you suggest, are happy to consume potentially sapient beings anyway.

People in real life are incredibly bizarre in how they conceptualize certain items related to food supplies. We don't worry about hybridization as unnatural, yet consider genetic modification to be so. So, I think it's entirely possible it would be a question of "who."

You seem to have indicated in later posts that by "human level intelligence" you don't necessarily mean that animals have the full suite of cognitive sophistication that we do. However, I hope you now see why people might think you meant animals exist that are exactly as smart and sapient as humans. Which, of course, there aren't.

I can see that. Though, I admit the news cycle some days makes me think "animals as smart as humans" involves a severe overestimation of human intelligence. Particularly one as of late that has me facepalming.

Frogs would survive by not trying to eat giant bug-types larger than they are, but by instead preying on ordinary flies and suchlike. Pokémon could theoretically outcompete animals with similar ecological niches, but there are almost no pokémon that would compete with small insects and amphibians for their actual food sources. Beedrill and mundane frogs would probably rarely interact.

I doubt they would rarely interact. Beedrill are noted for being extremely territorial. Frogs would be interlopers, and likely would get attacked. Frogs are, well... not the brightest of creatures, and easily fooled into trying to eat something they can't. I can see them interacting often until all local frogs are dead.

Plenty of animals can sometimes demonstrate complex reasoning as applied to specific tasks that is comparable with what we usually think of as 'human level' thought, but no animals are capable of actual human sapience. By this I don't mean 'using rocks to raise the water level in a container to obtain food', I mean uniquely human developments such as machinery, writing, music, philosophy, surgery, and so on. Maybe some animals can solve puzzles, some can build structures, some can have culture, some can take slaves, and some can vote. No single species besides us can do all those things. No other animal besides us cooks their food. No other animal has built a space station. No other animal posts on the internet.

Pokemon are not noted for doing those things either. For the most part, Pokemon are noted for being magical animals.

Pokémon are fantasy creatures, and as writers of prose fiction we can make up whatever rules we like for them, including "raising a pokémon among humans results in PMD-style talking pokémon without any issues." Any objections on the basis of realism are irrelevant. One may as well argue to the design teams for the earliest pokémon products that the various fantastic properties of the creatures are absurd and break the laws of physics.

People regularly do make such arguments to those design teams. And regularly make those same arguments on here.

That said, I did note that some of what I said may not apply. If it doesn't, then it doesn't; I was giving feedback to consider, not dictating a way a story must be written. I mean, I write a story where two of the main characters have psychic powers, another has hairclips that completely negate psychic powers for no explained reason (and I plan to imply they have no idea how this actually works and never explain it), and at some point include an interdimensional invasion as part of a visit to Alola. I'm not exactly sitting pretty in the realism department myself, so it would be hypocritical to expect someone else to

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

I noted early on I was assuming real-world Earth for my comments. And several times suggested not using real-world Earth for precisely all of the problems I note.

I would say "my bad" but a strict interpretation of your early note would involve not having pokémon at all. I thought there was some margin for interpretation of what you meant. "Whatever fantasy reasons" includes the existence of pokémon, without which we can't have this necessarily counterfactual discussion.

I honestly can't say for certain that there would be a difference.

I'm sure that if livestock could beg not to be eaten, that it would cause an uptick in vegetarianism. I'm on hell of a cynic, but it's hardly a reach.

People in real life are incredibly bizarre in how they conceptualize certain items related to food supplies. We don't worry about hybridization as unnatural, yet consider genetic modification to be so. So, I think it's entirely possible it would be a question of "who."

Certainly some people might object to "unnatural" sources of meat, but it's bizarre that people could be happy to eat potentially-people-pokémon but not definitely-not-people-vat-meat. The objections would exist, but they would be more along the lines of anti-GMO rhetoric.

Beedrill are noted for being extremely territorial. Frogs would be interlopers, and likely would get attacked. Frogs are, well... not the brightest of creatures, and easily fooled into trying to eat something they can't.

I think that's a pretty extreme interpretation of both creatures' behaviour. It's not surprise that beedrill might drive out humans, but frogs are not a threat to them. The idea that frogs would try to eat creatures a metre tall is laughable.

Pokemon are not noted for doing those things either. For the most part, Pokemon are noted for being magical animals.

Normally, no. But this thread is about meat in settings with sapient pokémon, not pokémon in general.

People regularly do make such arguments to those design teams. And regularly make those same arguments on here.

Okay? I mean... I disagree with them, too? What point are you trying to make?

 

[Ereshkigal]

I would say "my bad" but a strict interpretation of your early note would involve not having pokémon at all. I thought there was some margin for interpretation of what you meant. "Whatever fantasy reasons" includes the existence of pokémon, without which we can't have this necessarily counterfactual discussion.

This is pretty much where I think we're going to get stuck; I was looking at real-world with Pokemon tacked on, and you're looking at real-world with Pokemon altering it.

You're not lacking a basis for your interpretation, though. It's a fair one.

I'm sure that if livestock could beg not to be eaten, that it would cause an uptick in vegetarianism. I'm on hell of a cynic, but it's hardly a reach.

Eh, I still am on the fence on this. In part because I think it depends on who would be employed to deal with, um, getting the meat. Plus, much of the population is going to remain removed from their food sources still, so...

Certainly some people might object to "unnatural" sources of meat, but it's bizarre that people could be happy to eat potentially-people-pokémon but not definitely-not-people-vat-meat. The objections would exist, but they would be more along the lines of anti-GMO rhetoric.

Yet there are people who eat store-bought bacon but object to eating a pet pig.

I think that's a pretty extreme interpretation of both creatures' behaviour. It's not surprise that beedrill might drive out humans, but frogs are not a threat to them. The idea that frogs would try to eat creatures a metre tall is laughable.

There are plenty of videos online of frogs trying to eat human hands, so we know they'll go for targets up to 1.8 meters in height. So, I don't think it's that laughable when reality is that ridiculous And any animal, when annoyed enough...

Normally, no. But this thread is about meat in settings with sapient pokémon, not pokémon in general.

My original replies to the thread assumed sentience as though it was human-level intelligence and complexity of thought, without assuming human behavior; that, while still highly intelligent and capable of complex thought, they are still the game-described Pokemon at their core.

The moment we get into them acting just like humans is the moment we into my question on the difference between sentient Pokemon and Pokemon-shaped humans. If they are, in essence, effectively nothing more than humans in another shape and with special powers, then it goes back to a lot of what I said having no application. If they actually are different from humans, then it becomes a question of how and what impacts those differences have and how much of the games' write-ups we need to include within their behavior. Even humans are driven by instincts, so sapient creatures with entirely different sets of instincts might have vastly different actions than us even if they have the same capacity to reason and create; different drives going into the same mental complexity results in different outcomes even among humans.

So, again, are we talking about sentient pokemon, or pokemon-shaped humans? Neither answer is right or wrong, but the answer massively changes my approach to the topic and what I can say.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Plus, much of the population is going to remain removed from their food sources still, so...

We have animal advocacy pressure groups irl. They'd be a lot more effective if they had livestock that could go on TV and ask the public politely to please stop eating meat.

Yet there are people who eat store-bought bacon but object to eating a pet pig.

That's... not at all relevant. I don't have any idea why you're saying this.

People are okay with eating processed meat that came from a pig. Why would they not be okay with eating processed meat that was grown synthetically in a lab?

There are plenty of videos online of frogs trying to eat human hands, so we know they'll go for targets up to 1.8 meters in height.

Well, aren't they going for a 'target' the size of a finger in those cases?

My original replies to the thread assumed sentience as though it was human-level intelligence and complexity of thought, without assuming human behavior; that, while still highly intelligent and capable of complex thought, they are still the game-described Pokemon at their core.

Canis describes the pokémon in question as 'citizens' in the OP. Her fics portray pokémon with jobs and clothes and smartphones. That is what we're talking about.

 

[Ereshkigal]

We have animal advocacy pressure groups irl. They'd be a lot more effective if they had livestock that could go on TV and ask the public politely to please stop eating meat.

That's... an entirely worse can of worms than even I am willing to deeply discuss, especially given how difficult it is to tell apart the animal advocacy groups from the animal "advocacy" groups.

But if we want to go by real life on this? No, that won't help.

That's... not at all relevant. I don't have any idea why you're saying this.

People are okay with eating processed meat that came from a pig. Why would they not be okay with eating processed meat that was grown synthetically in a lab?

It's relevant because it hints towards an important tendency: People don't act entirely logically on this. Why else would someone be okay with eating bacon, yet the idea of eating a pig as a pet cause them deep upset? Why else would the entire GMO-food discussion even exist? You're trying to approach this from a logical standpoint and missing the fact that logic itself does not always apply to how humans approach food.

Plus, I'm trying to avoid discussing how certain real-world systems that rely not on logic at all, but very much do give certain dietary restrictions, would come into play when you consider the rather mythological roles certain Pokemon have.

Well, aren't they going for a 'target' the size of a finger in those cases?

No. The actual human hand itself, usually along the side.

Canis describes the pokémon in question as 'citizens' in the OP. Her fics portray pokémon with jobs and clothes and smartphones. That is what we're talking about.

The context in which they're mentioned as citizens also implies they go feral with a lack of human contact or food, and the number of feral colonies massively outnumbers the number of civilized; I based the replies and information in question entirely on that, just in case there's something to her stories I missed that would account for what sounds at first like a zombie apocalypse setting (lack of food = feral is very common in recent zombie fiction, and I know I've seen "lack of socializing as well" at least once). So, I did not base my reply off of what existing writings of her's I am aware of.

That was my mistake.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

No, that won't help.

I think videos of sapient livestock begging you to become a vegetarian in fluent English would be an incredibly effective propaganda tool, and it boggles my mind that you think otherwise.

Why else would someone be okay with eating bacon, yet the idea of eating a pig as a pet cause them deep upset? Why else would the entire GMO-food discussion even exist?

You've got two issues here.

1: the perceptual disconnect that consumers have between cute pet pigs and packaged meat.

This exists because if people see a living being, they develop an emotional attachment to it. It's not logical, but it is explicable. Synthetic meat was never a living being, so there's not even a reason for people to become emotionally invested in a vat of artificial meat.

2: objections to synthetic meat/GMO food along the lines of "who am I eating?"

Objection to synthetic meat in real life are usually about it being 'unnatural' or having unknown health risks due to the science behind it being in its infancy, or the meat potentially being less tasty and more expensive and therefore not worth buying. I've never heard anybody argue that synthetic meat used to be a living being, since, you know, it wasn't. The argument usually goes that synthetic meat can be eaten by vegetarians in good conscience, which is why it was brought up in this thread.

Let's compare the two.

Imagine that you have packaged conventional meat and packaged synthetic meat alongside eachother in a supermarket, and are choosing which to buy. You know on an intellectual level that the conventional meat was once a living tauros (or cow), and the synthetic meat was once a cell cluster in a test tube. If you had an issue with "who" your meat used to be, why would you be okay with eating the meat that was a potentially sapient tauros, and not the meat that came out of a vat?

You've been arguing that people would have no problem eating the former but suddenly object to the latter. I don't get why you think that, at all. It's not enough to say "people aren't logical." Irrational humans don't automatically pick the least sensible option in a haze of blinkered stupidity. Humans aren't logical, but they do make sense. Attachment to real pigs makes sense even if there's a rational disconnect when people eat pork nonetheless. Attachment to vat meat doesn't make sense.

I remain convinced that the availability of lab-grown meat in a setting where the livestock can become sapient would result in an uptake of synthetic meat consumption.

 

[Ereshkigal]

I think videos of sapient livestock begging you to become a vegetarian in fluent English would be an incredibly effective propaganda tool, and it boggles my mind that you think otherwise.

The propaganda tools related to how livestock are actually killed, or were actually killed in the past, didn't do anything despite how horrific some of the methods were. The propaganda tools equating eating meat with increased global warming have not even convinced most hardcore environmentalists to give up meat, even when they devote everything else they do to countering human-caused climate change.

Why would this be any different?

You've got two issues here.

1: the perceptual disconnect that consumers have between cute pet pigs and packaged meat.

This exists because if people see a living being, they develop an emotional attachment to it. It's not logical, but it is explicable. Synthetic meat was never a living being, so there's not even a reason for people to become emotionally invested in a vat of artificial meat.

2: objections to synthetic meat/GMO food along the lines of "who am I eating?"

Objection to synthetic meat in real life are usually about it being 'unnatural' or having unknown health risks due to the science behind it being in its infancy, or the meat potentially being less tasty and more expensive and therefore not worth buying. I've never heard anybody argue that synthetic meat used to be a living being, since, you know, it wasn't. The argument usually goes that synthetic meat can be eaten by vegetarians in good conscience, which is why it was brought up in this thread.

I cut this off here. I'll demonstrate why after I first deal with one stance.

I didn't address this earlier because I didn't want to get into it, but... It's actually questionable on if it is vegetarian, and there's a lot of vegetarians who say it's not. Both this article and this article show the typical arguments I've seen, even if in lite form. So, actually, it's entirely possible that vegetarians can't eat synthetic meat in good conscience.

I also stopped it here because you're ignoring one problem with the synthetic meat, which is represented in the question of "Who does it come from?" I posted earlier: No company producing it will ever be able to give an accepted satisfactory answer about the source of the meat. Was it cloned from some wild Pokemon no one will ever meet? Or was it cloned from Jim the Rockruff who delivers my mail every Thursday? Am I eating some creature I will never know or care about, or am I eating the mailman I am good friends with?

That is why the disconnect between bacon and pet pigs matters; it's the same logic behind both that stance and the question being asked.

 

[unrepentantAuthor]

Why would this be any different?

Because while people might care about animal welfare, they still consider animals a lower class of creature to humans. If they were articulate in spoken English, people would think of them differently. If it talks, it's a person, someone might think. And we don't approve of eating people. I don't see how this is a contentious perspective.

Am I eating some creature I will never know or care about, or am I eating the mailman I am good friends with?

The original material might be sourced from an actual living creature, but the cultured meat certainly isn't one. As I understand it, we're not talking about eating clones, we're talking about brainless meat on its own. It seems pretty unambiguous to me that vat meat is in no way a sentient being. Your premise makes no sense to me.