JohnDBarrow

I'm not here to argue anything. I came to ask questions. I want to know what YOU think the answers might be. If you don't honestly know the answers then please say you don't know. I'm only seeking opinions. I focus on the human species because there is a cultural aspect of the sexes not possessed by other animals. Female dogs don't wear lipstick.

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up? I ask because my mother once remarked that this world would be a better place without male and female. She said this in response to my remark that male and female is a beautiful thing of nature. As times progress onward, the differences between male and female seem to becoming more and more confused. There are certain societal and political biases that seem to put one or the other sex at a disadvantage. Men are often given harsher sentences for the same types of crimes because judges view men as naturally more menacing than women perhaps because of the perceived muscular strength of men and that women are looked upon as naturally weaker and less competent. We still have a Girl Scouts for absolutely females only but there is no longer a male-only Boys Scouts. It seems as the male side of our species is especially becoming less relevant.

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? 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.

It's just a human figure of speech. Even my science teacher in high school used the term "Mother Nature" as if "she" were some sort of living person. Sometimes human behaviors might lead to the outcomes of certain things and alter the future. We can select our sex partners at will. As to how and why the particular reproductive layouts of various living species came about, I can't honestly say.

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

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!

Human hermaphroditism might not be a good thing after all. That would mean each and every person could have a baby. Even with male and female in separate bodies, the world is way overpopulated as it stands right now.

I wasn't trying to invalidate anything. I wanted folks here to understand that two separate individuals are involved in bringing forth young even in hermaphroditic species. For some reason, Mother Nature provided that the vertebrate (higher-level) animals be unisexual (male and female in separate bodies). Logically, I try to pick the line in the store that I perceive to get me out of the store the fastest. Mother Nature may have found it most efficient to put male and female in separate human bodies if nature has any free will or reasoning power at all. Another name for hermaphrodites are bisexuals. This term is not to be confused with the sexual orientation of being attracted to both sexes.

The hermaphroditic animal species still involve two separate parents to bring forth young (at least in earthworms) as far as I know. Female parts of plants are above male parts, so pollination (inbreeding) won't occur within the same plant merely by the law of gravity. The wind (or birds and bees) has to carry pollen from neighboring plants for genetic diversity. Most plant life is hermaphroditic as far as I know.

I dare say the hermaphroditic earthworms are quite populated worldwide. I understand it still takes two of these individuals to reproduce. Genetic diversity would still come from two separate individual earthworms which mate with one another. My theory is that if humans were also hermaphroditic and naturally able to continue their species, still two separate individuals would be in order to reproduce. A single individual entirely reproducing on its own in theory would indeed lack any genetic diversity. Here is a link (not safe for work) to a piece of artwork I made to provide you a mental picture of my notions of a hypothetical hermaphroditic human had Mother Nature otherwise gone that route or may still choose to go that route in the future before Man becomes entirely extinct should that be the fate for us. https://www.mediafire.com/view/94s6qklnc0xc3yx/concept_hermaphrodititc_human.png/file My concept hermaphroditic human (the one that never happened but might still happen in the future) is conceived by me to possibly be able to both bear and sire healthy children under normal circumstances. The trouble is that uterine female mammals generally have limited physical strength and stamina. Since each and every of my theoretical hermaphroditic humans would have childbearing capability under normal circumstances, how well might they be able to do strenuous and dangerous labors? The non-childbearing men have a physical advantage over the childbearing women and therefore men have been assigned the more dangerous and difficult work for the longest time. Modern woke societal attitudes regarding sex and gender disregard such natural differences between men and women. But I digress. How might the hormones work in a single mammal's body with both impregnating and childbearing capabilities?

Being natural hermaphrodites seems to work well for earthworms, but most other natural animal species NORMALLY have male and female in separate bodies. Is having male and female in separate bodies a practical reproductive plan for humans, mammals, birds and etc? In Man's various cultures, this separate male and female setup seems to have been the cause of a lot of social inequalities since man first picked up a stone and cast it. One such sex inequality invented by Man has been "ladies first". What are the pros and cons of having a species set up by nature as hermaphrodites as opposed to having a species divided with separate male and female individuals? What is the advantage to having human individuals divided by sex? In nature, male lions don't seem to understand the notion of 'ladies first' if you understand the pride's feeding order.