The Ethics Of Pokemon Evolution....

[TehCookie]

You say that as if you're actually forcing the evolution onto the pokemon. In the world of pokemon evolution is more accurately described as metamorphosis, a natural part of the pokemon's life cycle. You can make a case about 'forcing evolution' when it actually requires external factors (like an elemental stone, for instance), but in pure experience cases the only action you have available to you is preventing the pokemon from changing when it itself is good and ready to do so.

That is a world where pokemon happily blow themselves up on the whims of their trainer. I don't think our ideas of ethics really apply there.

Let me go ahead and fix that for you: That is a world where Pokemon happily blow themselves up regardless of whether or not they have a trainer (Which somehow only results in a fully treatable loss of consciousness, oddly enough). It's what makes wild Voltorbs and Geodudes (after level 29) so terrifying.

I mean it is forcing though. If I'm catching a pokemon and making it fight for experience so that it evolves, is that not forcing evolution?

No, it speeds it up but it's not forced. Many pokemon want a strong trainer so they can evolve quicker, that's why wild pokemon fight trainers so they can prove their worth. Forcing is with stones or unethical training or other means like the Lake of Rage's radio.

Didn't the anime cover some of that? Pokemon want to evolve to help their owns and to be stronger. In the anime James's Koffing wanted to evolve, and that's your example. Now not every pokemon wants to (see Ash's Pikachu) but I believe it also showed that forced evolution is a bad thing in universe. Pretty sure there was some scheme of Team Rocket forcing Magikarp to evolve, but I think that was in gold/silver.

Also I don't think Wheezing is sickly, it's called wheezing because it sounds like a sick human. But it's not a human so that could be it's normal, healthy breath. Who knows about Pokemon biology.

That too is my point. James' Koffing wanted to evolve to be stronger, but at great personal cost to it's own happiness. James should of been a wiser trainer to say no.

Again why do you think he's unhappy? That's like saying grumpy cat should be put down because she's not happy, just look at her face she's miserable.

 

[Yopaz]

Oh, Pokemon got its dark moments.

Want to evolve the ice Pokemon Snorunt and you actually expose it to a dawn stone and it evolves into a ice/ghost Pokemon.

So are you actually killing the Pokemon by melting it since it turns to a ghost?

Koffing just goes from one bad to another bad.

 

[RJ 17]

I'd say it's "ethically" worse to deny your Pokémon's progression through it's natural life cycle than it is to encourage that progression. Look at Metapod, doomed to be forever trapped in a cocoon if it's trainer denies it the right to evolve. Evolution is a natural process that occurs in the wild just as it occurs because of being raised by a trainer.

Then again this is a fictional world with fictional rules. They use Pokémon as frickin' power plants for crying out loud...how ethical is that? Or how ethical is it to be having Pokémon fight each other in the first place? Isn't the entire concept of pitting these happy, blissful creatures against one another in mortal combat basically the same as legally sanctioned dog fights? Is not every Pokémon trainer essentially the exact same as Michael Vick? Sure, we don't beat and torture them like Vick was doing with his dogs, but we're carelessly throwing them into battles in which they can get poisoned, paralyzed, burned, etc.

So yeah, I think if you're going to start trying to raise ethical arguments about Pokémon, it'd be best to start with the very base concept of it all.

 

[SD-Fiend]

I'd say it's "ethically" worse to deny your Pokémon's progression through it's natural life cycle than it is to encourage that progression. Look at Metapod, doomed to be forever trapped in a cocoon if it's trainer denies it the right to evolve. Evolution is a natural process that occurs in the wild just as it occurs because of being raised by a trainer.

Then again this is a fictional world with fictional rules. They use Pokémon as frickin' power plants for crying out loud...how ethical is that?

They actually still use regular power plants. Kalos even has solar energy plant.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I outright refuse to evolve Paras. That is a fate the poor thing does not deserve! Sure, it's just a theory, but it makes more sense than anything else I've heard.

Parasect's growth has been stunted by the mushroom that has resided on its back since birth. The mushrooms sink their spores into the host's brain, giving the parasitic mushroom total control over the Paras. Due to being possessed for so long, the eyes have whited out and the mushroom has drained almost all of the Parasect's life force, which gives the mushrooms the energy to grow into a gross exaggeration of its former size.

Once they are that huge, they take total control of the Parasect's mind, creating a "hivemind" with other host Parasects. To ensure survival, the mushrooms force the Parasect to breed and once the eggs are laid, the mushrooms coat the eggs with their parasitic spores, ensuring their offspring will wind up in the same, dead-eyed and doomed fate they currently have.

Man... Poor Paras...

THIS! THIS!

If anyone evoles a Paras then they are complete monsters, evolving it basically kills it!

 

[Hero of Lime]

I feel more sorry for a Pokemon like Eevee, it probably has its own wishes for what it wants to evolve into. Yet, we just use a highly suspect stone to evolve it, or it evolves naturally with it's happiness by standing next to a certain rock. Though I doubt the Pokemon are supposed to care anyway. They probably want to evolve the same way a child wants to be an adult, considering Pokemon evolution is basically just the Pokemon growing up and maturing.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Ugh. I'm never this guy. I promise. I swear. Politics + Video Games can be a cool thing to talk about.

But... Don't try and make sense of the Pokemon world. Your Pokemon love you the more you force them to fight. It's not really force though; they want to fight. They want explode for you. It's weird, and kind of fucked up when you think about it. So just don't bother. Go to whatever person tells you how much your Pokemon loves you, you'll see. My personal favorite being the footprint guy from gen 4.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

No I mean, I'm sure this is a spongebob is gay thing, where you're reading too far into it and getting messages that nobody ever intended.

But one interesting piece of trivia that I remember creeping me out as a child that's relevant. You know Paras? The little bug thing with the mushrooms on its back? When it evolves into parasect, the mushroom (or parasite hence the name Paras/Parasect) gets so big that it's able to take over its mind. So the pokemon you just evolved is no more and the mushroom is now the pokemon.

 

[suntt123]

No I mean, I'm sure this is a spongebob is gay thing, where you're reading too far into it and getting messages that nobody ever intended.

But one interesting piece of trivia that I remember creeping me out as a child that's relevant. You know Paras? The little bug thing with the mushrooms on its back? When it evolves into parasect, the mushroom (or parasite hence the name Paras/Parasect) gets so big that it's able to take over its mind. So the pokemon you just evolved is no more and the mushroom is now the pokemon.

That happens to insects in real life actually...
Anyway the OP is saying that like we're FORCING them to evolve. We don't force pokemon to evolve (except maybe item evolve pokemon, pokes who evolve in certain areas or by trade). They evolve NATURALLY when they reach a certain level. We can stop it if we want to.

Also, I'd like to point out:
Wild pokemon are suicadally DENSE. I once fought a Meinshao with a Golurk trying to catch it. It used Hi Jump Kick twice in a row and fainted itself....

 

[C_sector]

Ugh. I'm never this guy. I promise. I swear. Politics + Video Games can be a cool thing to talk about.

But... Don't try and make sense of the Pokemon world. Your Pokemon love you the more you force them to fight. It's not really force though; they want to fight. They want explode for you. It's weird, and kind of fucked up when you think about it. So just don't bother. Go to whatever person tells you how much your Pokemon loves you, you'll see. My personal favorite being the footprint guy from gen 4.

Electrode explodes in response to even the smallest stimulation, simply to entertain itself, or because it has taken in too much electricity.

source: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Electrode_%28Pok%C3%A9mon%29

I never really thought that evoling a pokemon had an ethical dilema....
I mean, we are catching them from their normal habitat and then getting them to fight for us in tournaments. Thats, two ethical dilema's in the one sentence.... so, I win?

 

[freaper]

I'd like to partially hijack your thread with a statement;

a Pokémon's loyalty and, more importantly, its identity are both tied solely to their Pokéball, once caught. This is different from the anime where Charizard was hostile towards Ash at the start, or even Mankey (iirc) who kinda went all mayhem on Ash.

You can trade your Pokémon and they won't give to fucks about their old trainer, while every other NPC professes how important a strong mutual bond of friendship and trust between a Pokémon and its trainer is. They tried to fix that aspect with the whole friendship/affection mechanic, but that only affects certain evolutions or moves, so marginal at best.

 

[Plucky]

I assume that the Game's universe concept of levels is akin to simply growing, the Anime canon shows that Pokemon may evolve due to emotional changes such as anger,(basically any Magikarp) or even happiness...like all babies and Eevee. if Evolution is simply an extremely sped up version of Metamorphosis, then growing extra heads or limbs probably isn't going to impede the Pokemon's quality of life.

You probably have something with Weezing though...maybe the other mini-Koffing is some sort of parasitic twin, assuming they have a brain each, that little one might be trying to breathe, or possibly it might just be depressed due to the inability of movement.

Like i said, some form of canon doesn't use level and uses the emotional state/confidence/physical growth as the trigger for evolution, if someone was holding it back from evolving despite the Pokemon mentally/physically growing, they'd be hampering their own progress, stone evolution seems unusual since it emits unusual radiation, which forces evolution.

 

[Brian Tams]

We're going to question a game where the player is encouraged to whore out helpless dittos in order to produce eggs at a factory level?

Look, its Pokemon. There are tons of things that can been seen as morally wrong if you examine them close enough. Pokemon battles themselves are basically just legal cock fighting rings.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I think they're 1's and 0's so I have never had a personal quandry like that... who uses Koffing and Weezing anyway?

 

[shootthebandit]

So, airborne Rare Candy waves? I'm down with that.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it was more that it forced them to evolve as they were if they succumbed. The problem with it was that if Pokemon evolve before they're mature enough (or high enough level in game terms) that it could cause some rather odd or severe physical side effects. Dangerous stuff, basically.

As far as I know, gameplay-wise, the only downside to rushing evolution is that the Pokemon in question may not respond adequately in battle (kind of what happened with Charmeleon in the anime) if evolved prematurely. The Rare Candy mutant effect thing is something that happened once (I think?) on a plot level and never carried over to actual gameplay.

It does carry over. If you use the rare candy glitch in gen 1 and use 99 rare candies on a level 1 it really effects the stats. You just end up with a really shit level 100 pokemon (i know thats taking it to the excess but it just less so if you use less candies (probably negligable if you use 1 or 2)

OT: i think the OP is looking to much into this. Just like the time was convinced that angry birds was a metaphor for islamic terrorism. Throwing your character at a building full of pigs (a phrase commonly used for americans is "capitalist pigs")