Wizarding numbers: 24 000

[Mikael Raaterova]

No: HPFGUIDX 83303

Caipora quibbled about 24 000 wizards being too small a group to remain 
distinct over time:

>Another way of looking at it is "How many do you need?"
>
>How many people does it take to form a stable, distinct ethnic group
>in a larger society?

Two people, if they are fertile, and if enough offspring marry each other 
to at least replace their own numbers. Inbreeding may not be conducive to 
the health of the individuals of the group, but at least it will help the 
group become distinct over time. While that answer isn't entirely serious, 
the size of a group is actually not a deciding factor in sustaining its 
cohesion or identity over time. The will to keep the group pure and true to 
its distinguishing characteristics and separate from all other groups is. 
Also, if the group isn't willing to initiate non-members, it has to rely on 
traditional procreation to maintain itself, which may become problematic if 
more people leave the group than is born to it. As long as the Jews in 
Great Britain keep their culture distinct from British culture and avoid 
dying out, the size of their population is entirely irrelevant. Actually, a 
small number might even be good for cohesion, since that would make it 
easier to restrict members' interaction with non-members and lessens the 
risk of members getting foreign ideas. The Amish are another example. While 
I don't know the size of the Amish population in North America, I imagine 
that specific Amish communities, *each of which constitutes a stable, 
distinct group in a larger society* (I don't know about "ethnic", though, 
and i don't know why you included it in the first place, given that 
"wizard" isn't an ethnicity), may vary in size from a few hundred to 
several thousand, possibly even in the tens of thousands.

I think what you should have asked is how the wizarding world can maintain 
itself intact within the Muggle world. The answer is: magic. Wizards are 
the only humans able to use magic, and you have to learn to use your magic 
from a wizard (since the very first wizard had to teach himself magic, this 
statement isn't absolutely true, but for all practical reasons it 
suffices). This provides not only a very distinguishing characteristic for 
our wizards in relation to Muggles, it also provides wizards with a 
practical mechanism for teaching new members Wizarding culture (in 
contradistinction to British culture). It also seems likely that up until 
the muggle population explosion of the late 19th century and onwards, the 
vast majority of wizards were born to wizards, which means you don't need 
to "debrief" were many new members.

Furthermore, Muggles don't know wizards exist, and wizards are happy to, 
and even demand to, be left alone. This definitely helps to keep wizarding 
culture intact, but even if Muggles knew about wizards, it would matter 
little to the stability and distinction of the wizarding group, given their 
monopoly on magic.


>Your numbers are well based on the internal evidence, but you may
>have spent more time calculating than Rowling ever did. She writes
>fantasy, not science fiction, and isn't expected to have an entirely
>plausible and consistent world view.

I definitely don't expect JKR to bother with population dynamics, and I 
would be very surprised if my population figures matched what she has 
decided it is. I don't think it would be a lot of trouble coming up with 
credible explanations for whatever the actual number is, but until JKR 
discloses the population figure, I think 24 000 wizards or something in 
that ballpark is a useable figure.


/ Mikael