What if humans were to have not otherwise evolved as male and female in separate bodies?

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It is my notion that if all humans could have babies, not just half of the species, that would pretty much double our reproductive capacity. Men can fertilize women much faster than women can bear children. Women are only about half the population within the age group of human fertility. In unisex species, reproduction rate and baby-making efficiency are measured in the female, not male, half. 

Think about what our world numbers might be if our species was 90% women!

Your missing the point, their are many factors involved in how "mothre nature" regulates population, most of them are much more unpleasant than sex.

Did you know, a greenfly is born pregnant? You can't get more efficient than that... 

Humans have to eat, just like the greenfly; let a couple of mice into one of our grain store's and in a few months, all we'll have left is a huge mound of mouse bones and whatever fed on their carcass'... 😉

[Sensei]

9 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

PERHAPS, NATURE'S WAY OF NOT MAKING OUR OVERPOPULATION EVEN WORSE THAN IT IS ALREADY. 

No. Human is not a true hermaphrodite for the same reason that man does not have six fingers or six legs, i.e. inheritance of genes from an older generation to a newer one. Errors in DNA reproduction result in the deactivation or even complete loss of part of the genetic code. Once the tetrapodomorphs developed four (premature) legs, and passed them on to the tetrapod, it was very difficult to regain the legs lost in evolution. The same applies to hermaphroditism.

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It is my notion that if all humans could have babies, not just half of the species, that would pretty much double our reproductive capacity. Men can fertilize women much faster than women can bear children. Women are only about half the population within the age group of human fertility. In unisex species, reproduction rate and baby-making efficiency are measured in the female, not male, half. 

Think about what our world numbers might be if our species was 90% women!

!

Moderator Note

This isn't a section for "notions". This is a mainstream science section. If you have evidence to support this notion, or a way to test your hypothesis, I can move this to Speculations, otherwise it's just a wild guess. 

 

[JohnDBarrow]

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Your missing the point, their are many factors involved in how "mothre nature" regulates population, most of them are much more unpleasant than sex.

Did you know, a greenfly is born pregnant? You can't get more efficient than that... 

Humans have to eat, just like the greenfly; let a couple of mice into one of our grain store's and in a few months, all we'll have left is a huge mound of mouse bones and whatever fed on their carcass'... 😉

I'm not missing anything. I'm sharing my thoughts. It seems logical to me that if you were to double the number of child bearers within a given species by making each and every member of that species a child bearer, as opposed to just half the said species, the population rate of growth would be considerably greater than otherwise. How many babies can a single woman bear during her lifetime? How many women can a single man impregnate during his lifetime? 

10 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

This isn't a section for "notions". This is a mainstream science section. If you have evidence to support this notion, or a way to test your hypothesis, I can move this to Speculations, otherwise it's just a wild guess. 

 

Most scientific research was the result of human thoughts and questions asked by philosophers. I'm not a professional scientist, just a human thinker.  I proposed a what-if scenario here and thought some more versed in science could chime in. Perhaps my thread indeed belongs in the philosophical section. 

I will propose a new philosophical question here though. Why in fact is the human species composed of males and females in separate bodies? 

People ask questions and look to science to provide answers. 

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It seems logical to me that if you were to double the number of child bearers within a given species by making each and every member of that species a child bearer, as opposed to just half the said species, the population rate of growth would be considerably greater than otherwise. How many babies can a single woman bear during her lifetime? How many women can a single man impregnate during his lifetime? 

How does your assumption square with reality? Is every woman constantly pregnant? Is the availability of women limiting the size of human populations? What is the evidence? If a hypothesis does not square up with reality/data one should revise one's assumptions, rather than doubling down. Starting with wrong premises results in wrong conclusions, even if the steps in-between are logical.

21 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I will propose a new philosophical question here though. Why in fact is the human species composed of males and females in separate bodies? 

Asking questions suggests that one is open to new information. What is your response to the information outlined in the posts above? In fact, have you perhaps bothered to google the term "gonochorism" and its evolution? That makes it way easier than trying to describe it the way you continue to do. Information is out there, but one has to seek it out (and be willing to learn).

[exchemist]

On 4/17/2024 at 12:37 AM, JohnDBarrow said:

It is my notion that if all humans could have babies, not just half of the species, that would pretty much double our reproductive capacity. Men can fertilize women much faster than women can bear children. Women are only about half the population within the age group of human fertility. In unisex species, reproduction rate and baby-making efficiency are measured in the female, not male, half. 

Think about what our world numbers might be if our species was 90% women!

I think you are overlooking the time and effort it takes to nurture a human baby. Before modern human societies arose, you needed two parents to raise a child, because of the long time it takes before a young human is independent. 

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I'm not missing anything. I'm sharing my thoughts. It seems logical to me that if you were to double the number of child bearers within a given species by making each and every member of that species a child bearer, as opposed to just half the said species, the population rate of growth would be considerably greater than otherwise. How many babies can a single woman bear during her lifetime? How many women can a single man impregnate during his lifetime? 

You are missing the point, "Mother Nature" has a built in escape clause when it comes to actual overpopulation, it's an automatic death sentence, and your thoughts on the subject has very little to do with it.

[npts2020]

On 4/16/2024 at 10:47 PM, CharonY said:

If it leads to reproductive success it will stick around.

I would quibble slightly with this, in that there is also the matter of surviving long enough to actually reproduce, although I think high reproduction rates definitely are a major positive contributor to a species survival in most cases.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

I would quibble slightly with this, in that there is also the matter of surviving long enough to actually reproduce, although I think high reproduction rates definitely are a major positive contributor to a species survival in most cases.

Actually that part is included in term "reproductive success".

[Carrock]

On 4/19/2024 at 2:25 AM, npts2020 said:

I would quibble slightly with this, in that there is also the matter of surviving long enough to actually reproduce, although I think high reproduction rates definitely are a major positive contributor to a species survival in most cases.

If a predator's reproductive success is greater than that of its prey, high reproduction rates definitely are a major negative contributor to a species survival in most cases.

Predator numbers would closely track prey numbers as they increase; in bad times for prey reproduction, prey and then predator numbers would crash as prey was eaten by faster breeding predators. Eventually, perhaps after a few repeats, the predator and/or the prey would become extinct.

In practice, e.g. introducing feral cats on a small island, most of the prey species are driven to extinction but the predator often scrapes a living in an impoverished environment.