10
3
I'm trying to create alien species that is hermaphroditic, with strong sexual conflict. In essence each being tries to trick or force (by mechanical or hormonal means) its partner to take role of female during copulation, as to avoid costs of bearing the young. Their behavior is in this case is similar to snails or flatworms.
The question is: what kind of environmental pressures favor hermaphroditism over regular sexual reproduction.
Can very unstable environment that requires fast breeding or makes meeting other members of the species be such pressure? Any others?
Update: after reading answers I think I am going to change my Herms.
They evolved from hermaphroditic ancestors. In fact hermaphroditism is now dominant on their homeworld by some evolutionary accident. That removes the problem with establishing how they became hermaphroditic in the first place.
Each Herm has both female and male gonads. During copulation they exchange complex cocktail of hormones trying to suppress sperm production and force ovulation in each other. The winner forces its partner to became pregnant and goes looking for another occasion. It creates evolutionary arms race. Winners produce lots and lots of children.
There was once isolation in time between tribes. Herms' homeworld has short good seasons. Winters and summers are harsh and most lifeforms spent them in cryptobiosis. Now, when climate was tamed this ancestral ability helps Herms in interplanetary travels.
Bidirectional hermaphroditism is the basis of social development. Some subtype of hormonal cocktail may be used to control subservient members of the tribe. Later in industrial age some chemical tyrants may order production and dispersal of such hormones on mass scale. They are called husbands of a nation in symbolic terms. Their tyranny lasts until some of their subjects acquire resistance. Herms' warfare is rather slow, sneaky and eugenic.
There are also other types of social arrangements. Rare parthenogenetic clans specialize in science, philosophy and religion. There is also quite new development - participatory relationships where partners use modern medicines to ensure equal exchange of genetic materiel.
Thanks everybody for help.
Update 2: I forgot to add. Herms are not humanoid. Their bodyplan is roughly similiar to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triops, more vertical, with longer legs. This may change.
Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our [tour]. This question has the potential to be too broad and primarily opinion-based. Are we assuming an Earth-like planet (e.g., Earth, with hermaphroditic humans)? Have you studied sexual dimorphism and its evolution?
– JBH – 2019-05-15T16:44:07.993Understanding how we got to where we are would help you refine your question. – JBH – 2019-05-15T16:44:29.520
1
Note that sentient beings tend to have very small effective populations, so that the selective pressures need to be very high in order to drive evolution. Remember that evolution is driven simultaneously by natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift; which of the three forces is the most important depends on population size and the magnitude of the selective pressures.
– AlexP – 2019-05-15T16:58:37.203If the conflict pressure is strong then hermaphroditism is even less likely, You can't be forced to have offspring if you don't have female gametes. – John – 2019-05-15T18:07:37.447
Hermaphrodites have both male and female organs. They are not trans women or cross dressers with boobs. Even if some cheap porn sells those as hermaphrodites... – Carl Dombrowski – 2019-05-15T20:00:54.860
1Honestly, I think that a more difficult question to answer is: what kind of environment favors species whose existence is dependent on the coupling of two distinct, codependent sexes? What advantage do we gain by cutting our mating pool in half? What advantage is mating over splitting like amoeba anyway? It's easy to imagine how a species in our own environment, but which doesn't have our sexual limitations, would flourish better, and maybe even be happier for it. – boxcartenant – 2019-05-15T22:27:35.663
@boxcartenant, why would that be more difficult? We can look at thousands of species on Earth that are dimorphic and study the benefits they have and consider what evolutionary pressures brought them to pass. It's much harder to look at the complete lack of complex (read: animal) hermaphroditic species and answer the same questions. Tough to come to a conclusion without any data to work with. The reality is that life and evolution has already proven your premise wrong. – JBH – 2019-05-16T03:18:16.660
@JBH Any assessments we make about the advantages of dimorphism really boil down to speculation, based only on observations about the way things are (if animal X compensates for something by dimorphism, then dimorphism is read as an advantage because X would have to solve its problem another way without it), because as you said, no animals exist of another sort. The premise that evolution only leads creatures to evolve characteristics which are objectively beneficial is faulty, I think. It seems more likely to me that we just happened to end up this way, not because it's actually advantageous. – boxcartenant – 2019-05-16T22:42:31.277
1@boxcartenant I agree that the "objectively beneficial" observation is inherently faulty, but it's hard to argue with success. If evolution really is pure randomness, then I'd vote that every "save the planet!" style environmental effort isn't just wrong, it's evil, because that assessment makes humanity the single most precious commodity in the universe. A commodity that has little chance of forming anywhere else or in any way. A commodity so rare, that any price paid to prosper it is worth paying. – JBH – 2019-05-17T02:22:05.190
@JBH Well, "randomness" is a word loosely applied to evolutionary theory, but without a baseline for measuring the origin of all things, which is irrefutably determined to be nonrandom, (an impossible determination on limited sets of empirical data alone), it's hard to say that the universe is anything but random. That said, I suppose that given a market-evaluation of humanity as a commodity, your conclusion is not far from the actual truth. – boxcartenant – 2019-05-17T20:54:28.937