The imago, it should be noted, is a different individual from the larva. So really you've just got a two-stage reproductive process:
- two A-people have sex - one of the A-people has a baby, but dies in the process - the baby is a B-person, who can't have sex, but who gives birth to lots of A-people anyway
This seems more complicated than the ordinary system, and has some downsides: a) every time there's a child born in the A-generation, somebody has to die. That means that in A-generations there can be no population growth. b) it may also have less direct consequences: like, sex becomes terrifying (if you get pregnant, you're going to die!) and the knowledge and experience accrued can't be passed on; more generally, it's harder to maintain cultural continuity
c) people in the B-generation can't have sex, so can't mix their genes. So in half the generations there's no population growth, and in the other half of generations there's no genetic mixing. This seems like it would get outcompeted by faster-breeders!
I think the potential in this system lies in reducing the significance of the A-generation - since they can't grow the population, you want to reduce the proportion of the social cycle spent in the A-state.
And it turns out, there is at least one species that reproduces like that! They're called... humans. What you call "larvae" are usually called "sperm" and "eggs", and what you call "imagos" are usually called "people", but it seems to be the same principle...
Anyway, i'm not saying this can't work. Just... maybe think a bit about the downsides, and what the upsides might be.
_________________ Blog:
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
|