Are Pokemon trainers vegetarians?

Last night I was playing Pokemon before I went to sleep. I was running in tall grass in order to find Pokemon so I could eventually catch them and then continually fight (and possibly kill, not all people "faint" after a fight) them to make my Pokemon stronger. As with most things in my life, I sat in my room over analyzing the simple video game because I have too much free time. The monotonous (but for some reason incredibly addicting) "grinding" made me wonder what the inner workings of a Pokemon were. Do they want to be captured, do they want to live in a pocket sized cell, do they want to live out the rest of their days as a slave? I want to meet that Pokemon who yearned for liberation, who aspired to be more than just a colorful, fuzzy, uncle tom.

Some might argue that Pokemon do actually want to be dominated, and dedicate their life to inter species conflict and drudgery. However, considering that Pokemon have a developed an advanced form of communication I'd have to believe that they are conscious. In fact, their language is so advanced they are able to verbally coordinate complex plans (Ash's Pokemon at one point devise a plan to escape an avalanche in the first season). Why would they not demand emancipation? They are clearly conscious and have a fundamental understanding of their own existence. Where are the Pokemon rebellions? Where are the Pokemon who demand independence, agency, and relevancy? Do they simply not exist? I think not and can only consider this to be the fault of the domineering, self righteous, over zealous, "Pokemasters."

These Pokemon trainers claim that they have a special bond between master and Pokemon (slave). They believe the Pokemon they own are not only happy with them, but are in some way destined to be owned by them. This sounds to me more like human superiority. Also, I don't recall ever having to kidnap something in order to form some sort of companionship (unless of course it's with a dog, but dogs are in fact indoctrinated human-dependent slaves). The fact that they have to go out into the wilderness, invade their habitat, beat them into submission, and confine them into a "Pokeball" only suggests that they are a slave masters (not to mention the whole "trading" aspect seems insensitive and and exploitative).

Let us just assume that Pokemon are destined to be owned and held in indeterminate captivity. Let us assume a special bond is actually made, and a genuine relationship is created (it's a clearly one sided relationship however, I never hear about a Pokemon owning a human, but let's try not to focus on that imbalance.) Even if those two things were true, Pokemon trainers would still be hypocrites. How are they hypocrites? Allow me to explain.

In a world where Pokemon exist do regular animals exist? Or are they too considered conscious beings? Is their truly a difference between Rattata (lamest Pokemon right next to Kakuna) and a regular rat? I can only assume that all animals are Pokemon in this universe, because I've never seen a camel come out of a Pokeball. This brings an interesting set of ethical issues related to Pokemon consciousness. When Ash Ketchum eats meat, is he eating a Pokemon? If I had to guess, he probably is eating a Pokemon because in the Pokemon universe (Pokeverse?) even the fucking the rocks are alive and have awareness. Ultimately, when Pokemon trainers aren't enslaving their "Pokefriends" they are undoubtedly eating them. A Bellspout salad clearly had feelings, and let us not forget the anguish experienced by the Miltank who is now a delicious steak. I feel, that if Pokemon trainers make an oath to love and respect Pokemon, they probably shouldn't eat, ever (even the goddamn magnets are alive). Well maybe they're not hypocrites, maybe this is just a very complicated relationship. One that I will probably never fully understand.



Looks like Ash is having a great time with his best friend whom he respects and loves.