wizarding population

[Robert Shaw]

No: HPFGUIDX 83135

Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote

>
> Robert Shaw wrote in
>
> > Fewer muggles born in 1914-19 means fewer muggle-born wizards,
> > hence fewer wizards in total, and so on.


Catlady:

> Only if the number of muggle-born wizards is proportional to the
> number of Muggles born. Even if inheritance of wizardry was a matter
> of Muggle genetics, if the birth dearth during the Great War affected
> parents who didn't carry the recessive gene for magic far more than
> the parents who did carry it,

Unlikely.
The birth dearth was because so many young men were in the trenches,
hence unable to father children.

Why would recessive genes for magic stop you getting called up?

> In my own theory, is only partly a matter of Muggle genetics
> but also partly magical, with some deep magic causing that the number
> of magic babies born equals the number of mages who die, so that
> number of Muggle-born wizards has nothing to do with the number of
> Muggle births, but only with the excess of wizard deaths over wizard
> births.
>

Conceivable, though it does raise other questions.

What controls the area over which the wizardly population is in balance?

An excess of wizard deaths in the UK could be balanced by more
muggle-borns in India, unless this deep magic respects national
boundaries. Considering how young most nations are, I'd consider
that unlikely.

More likely, the new muggle-borns would be equidistributed across
the globe diluting the effects of Voldemort's killing spree into
insignificance.

However, in the absence of firm canonical support, I have to
discount this theory.

Of course, there's no firm canonical evidence that there are
genes for magic either, but nor is there any such evidence
that the potterverse venus circles their sun.

It's simplest to assume that muggle science is valid in the
potterverse unless directly contradicted (and sometimes
even then) or too many thing would become undecidable.

On that basis, I'll assume magic has genes, unless overtly
contradicted by canon.

>
> I feel sure that the wizarding birth rate fall was more than 2000
> years ago, maybe it was 8000 years ago. JKR has presented a wizarding
> world in which equal opportunity of wizards and witches seems to be
> the default position

But for how long?

> Elfrida Clagg (wrongly called
> Cragg in OoP) was Chief of the Wizard's Council in the mid-1300s.

Matilda was Queen of England two centuries earlier, not a great time for
women's rights.

There've always been exceptional women who gained power in the
teeth of prejudice but what matters is when powerful women became the
norm.

Nor is equality of opportunity necessarily connected with birth rate.
For muggles bringing up a large family was a full time job, because
of the sheer drudgery involved. Magic makes it much easier, house
elves more so.

Elfrida could have had twelve children but no husband, and still done
her job well, unlike any muggle of her time.

This means that for wizards, there is no conflict between large
families and feminine equality.

--
Robert