pokemon real?

[Arcanine-9]

Hey everyone im mike im studying biology and for a while ive been thinking what earth really would be like if Pokemon existed. Most of you are probolay like "oh well all humans would be extinct". thats what i would think as well... before rethinking the concept completely. Pokemon various species of beast with super natural powers or are they Animals with exaggerated powers. take arcanine for example a dog that can shot fire to me it sounds like komodo dragons effect from its poisonous bite or a cobra that spits venom out its mouth. so arcanine may be possible in real life along with many other pokemon. how ever with changes to most of them. arcanine for example would most likely spit poison or some kind of acid at enemies. So 90% of pokemon would still have dangerous abilities but more like are now excisting animal. So maybe we could exist along side them in the real world. if you agree with this or want to describe your fav pokemons real biology reply to this thread. =D

 

[Lunar]

Colours raises a good point, would they be like some pets today where over hundreds of years we domesticated them to the point where they are our friends, or would they be naturally friendly towards us?

In terms of the Pokemon themselves, I imagine many would be just exaggerated versions of animals we have today, with stronger powers for example. If Pokemon in the real world would be like they are in the games, anime etc then I definitely think we could live alongside them, but if they were too vicious then it could be a problem.

 

[tomwalker154]

Lol, I love your idea. I don't think we will have dogs or cats or any kinds of animals if Pokemon exist :D Then people will make a creative movies about Pokamon Pukeman...I dont know..which is about cats, dogs, giraffes,...:D

 

[Shamol]

This was probably when I was in sixth grade or so. Pokemon was all the rage back then.

I remember it being during recess. This kid from school and I were talking about Pokemon. I was into Pokemon too, but he seemed far more knowledgeable. He had garnered a following of sorts due to his extensive knowledge of the TCG (back then, a display of TCG knowledge usually consisted of having a few rare-seeming cards and maintaining the food chain by calling fake on whoever else managed to hit upon rares) and absolutely legit, completely canon, totally not non-kosher ways to capture Mew and Johto pokemon in the first gen games. So this person was telling me that the other day he was reading an encyclopedia which basically said certain water type pokemon were found in South America.

I remember being amazed (along with much of the crowd at attendance). I thought there was no way this could be false. He noticed our amazement and remarked with a wise-seeming smile- we know very little about what's actually in this world. And we must have nodded along sagely as well.

Middle school gullibility is the stuff of cringe.

Anyways, yes, similarities can be drawn at the very general level of being pokemon and real world creatures being dangerous and/or strange-looking. It's just that it's not even remotely conceivable how, given everything we know about biology (or even the world maybe) how complex creatures could come anywhere close to spitting fire. At risk of stating the obvious, it's not just exaggeration, the difference is qualitative. The problem is the metaphysics of pokemon (and the world they inhabit) is constituted by non-scientific concepts, e.g. the fundamental elements being fire/water/grass/earth. That's what contributes to the magic, as well as the absurdity, of pokemon.

Maybe in some completely different, magical, animistic conception of science pokemon would look much more feasible. I wonder how that world would look like.