>>14847464>They show enough to be considered sapient, for one. A goodly range of empathy, critical thinking, language, and that's not even getting into psychics or ghosts.Too bad sentience and sapience are relatives, not absolutes. There are degrees of empathy, there are degrees of intelligence, and there are degrees of biological communication.
>And good lord, no. They do not effectively replace animals. The ecosystem of this setting would just not work, each creature is dangerously powerful.It's a children's game, of course the eco system "would just not work" if we were to apply their abilities to our world. Also, you're ignoring the plethora of functional and behavioral similarities I just provided. Like it or not, there is no bird, cat, dog, lizard, bear or anything else in the continuity of the games that isn't an actual Pokemon. Like the other anon said, all Pokemon are described as having habitats. All of them are described as breeding on a regular basis. Humans are never described in the context of breeding and having habitats; those terms are exclusive to the observation and study of ANIMALS. This is just more grasping on your part.
I'm not trying to blow anything away from anything at all. If you like to daydream about fucking things that don't resemble a human as strongly as an actual human, cool. I was just disputing that one point.
