>>12957490I won't question your motives because it's clear you lack the means to do any of this if you're asking here.
Yeah, you could easily get to 2 birth per couple on average,by quite simply removing males from the reproduction process and investing into parthenogenesis.
Human parthenogenesis is generally a very big technical challenge though research is ongoing on the subject and from what little literature I've read on the topic it seems promising.
If you need males back, you can use the females you've growed for regular pregnancies.
System work thusly assuming all females are able to have a child from 12 onward, that mean there is sixteen 9 month cycle before the first wave gets in, essentially doubling the amount of childs produced every cycle onward.
It compounds exponentially thusly, at 16 cycles you produce double the amount of childs you have womens
at 17 cycles triple and so on until cycle 32 at which point you produced Sixteentime the amount and now get to eighteentimes, then 21 times then 25 times and so on.
Meaning in 24 years you basically hit critical mass, at this point even with a starting population of 5000, you could feasibly get to a child production of 930,000 child per cycle if I haven't messed up my math.
And all that without superfetation, adding it could make it a really interesting population system to model and i'll leave that to the people who know more on that matter here.
Now parthenogenesis might have dangers in humans especially genetically, much like cloning to some extent, but I believe this is relevant to your problem and hope that you'll have a lot of fun musing on the issue.
