Wizarding numbers: 24 000

[o_caipora]

No: HPFGUIDX 83423

The detailed extrapolation of wizarding population from the number of 
Hogwarts students is like unto an attempt to recreate a dinosaur 
based on a single vertabrae. 

However terrific the science applied, the results would probably 
benefit from starting with more data. 

There is lots more data on the WW: the number of workers at the 
Ministry of Magic, the described size of Hogsmeade "the only all-
wizard town in England", the commerce and infrastructure described. 

However, detailed analysis will be akin to taking a plate of 
bouillabaisse and attempting to reconstruct the creature from which 
it was made. It's composed a bit of this and a bit of that. Quite 
tasty to eat (as Rowling is to read) but it's not uniform in 
provenance, taste or texture. 

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

Not precisely. Taking several different cultures, including ancient 
Athens and Romany/gypsies in present-day UK, I tried to show that 
120,000 would be enough, and probably somewhat less would do given 
longer life span. 

Some smaller number may be enough. Some primitive tribes have gotten 
by with less, but they didn't build railroads, magic or otherwise. 
The sort of robust culture shown by the wizards requires some minimum 
number, below which it can't be sustained.

The problem is often dealt with in science fiction, where given the 
light-speed limit a trip to another star will require a ship large 
enough to sustain generations of humans. How many do you need so that 
the ship arrives with a civilization and not primitive sustained by 
automatic machinery?
 
> 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),

There are small groups of Amish in Paraguay, and even bookstores and 
other businesses that cater only to them. Don't know the numbers, 
though.

Perhaps "ethnic" isn't the correct term. The Jews are not a distinct 
ethnicity either, as nothing differentiates them from other Semites 
of the Middle East. They fail as an analogy for wizards, though. They 
are neither mysterious nor secret, and are well integrated in 
schools, commerce, and public life. There's nothing about Jews that 
seems exotic to outsiders. Certainly that wasn't true hundreds of 
years ago, but the farther we go from the present the farther we get 
from our world and the world Rowling is portraying, and the less 
useful any analogy becomes in explaining her world to us.

I like the Romany/Gypsies best as a stand-in for wizards. Not just 
silly similarities like fortune-telling, but a lack of integration 
with larger society. Even now they are closed off and live on the 
margins of the mainstram.

But there are more of them than one would think, and some are even 
filthy rich (I've seen the mansion of a Romany family in Brazil that 
would serve for Malfoy Manor).

> I think what you should have asked is how the wizarding world can 
maintain 
> itself intact within the Muggle world. The answer is: magic. 

The big problem there is that we can't do any field studies of magic-
users. Thus, the search for a real-world analogy.

> 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 

You make it sound like the Plasterer's Union, where you had to have a 
father or uncle in the union to join, and there's no other way to 
learn the trade . . .

> Furthermore, Muggles don't know wizards exist, and wizards are 
> happy to, and even demand to, be left alone. 

Sounds, again, a bit like gypsies. 

> 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.

I will disagree. Whatever number she comes up with will be 
inconsistent with some aspect of the world she's described. Much as 
whatever creature you attempt to construct from the plate of 
bouillabaisse, there will be a fin or tentacle that just won't fit 
anywhere.

Please understand that I like and applaud numbers in general, and 
yours in specific. Numbers are great as a way of forcing one to deal 
with facts that don't fit one's beliefs (which is why corporate 
accounting chicancery is so pernicious; it lets managers lie to 
themselves.) 

There's a kind of question that reputedly Microsoft employs in job 
interviews. Examples are "How many gas stations are there in the 
United States?" or "How many barbers are there in your city?" With 
only common knowledge and seat-of-the-pants calculation, one can get 
an order-of-magnitude figure.

It's clear that the wizarding population of Great Britain is over 
10,000 and under 1,000,000 and probably under 100,000. 

A seat-of-the-pants approach to all aspects of the society portrayed 
in the books may yield a more reliable number than an analysis, 
however detailed, of just one or two facts.

 - Caipora