8

Do wizards need Muggles?

This question makes me wonder -

Considering that Muggle extinction would also greatly reduce reliance on fuel, nuclear and chemical weapons, mass deforestation, and probably a host of other problems caused by Muggles, I'd say that, without Muggles, Wizards could end up pretty happy once things settled. But, regardless of whether or not Wizards end up happy, it seems to me that, without Muggles, the rest of the natural world would certainly end up happy.

In other words: does Voldemort's plan include ruining the world in some way other than de-Muggling it? It may suck for us, but is there any word as to why a particularly conscientious dolphin shouldn't rescue a drowning Voldemort?

13

The Dark Lord didn't have any desire or plans for environmental destruction.

The Dark Lord planned to gain control over the wizarding world, and later to subjugate or destroy the Muggles, and anyone else who wouldn't comply with his rule. However, his main goal was to assure himself power and immortality. He didn't destroy anything unless it furthered his goal somehow. In no situation do we see him destroy the environment, and what he does destroy (like buildings) is all done in order to achieve his ends of power to immortality. He is cunning, and environmental destruction does nothing to further his goals of ruling over the wizarding world, superiority over the Muggles, or preventing his own death.

For example, he killed unicorns in the Forbidden Forest, but that was in order to use their blood to strengthen themselves. His followers, the Death Eaters, don't cause much environmental destruction either. We see a Death Eater kill an animal, she thought it might have been a wizard spy.

Wizards born to Muggles may be treated less well than pure-blood wizards.

The Dark Lord despised Muggles most, but he also held wizards born to Muggles in fairly low regard. He considered wizards like Tonks, who was born to a mother who married a wizard whose parents were both Muggles, lesser.

However, this may have limited effect on those who take his side.

It seems important to note that the wizards he wanted to kill that weren't pure-bloods were mostly actively working to stop him from ever controlling the wizarding world. Severus Snape, a half-blood, was allowed to join the Death Eaters and was one of the Dark Lord's most trusted. It's entirely possible that the Dark Lord would have less strict views on not pure-blood wizards who were willing to accept his leadership over the wizarding world.

  • 7
    Well, of course you would think so.... – Adamant Aug 17 '17 at 7:11
  • 3
    With Voldemort's anti-muggle policy, having muggles exterminated, the wizarding community would slowly degenerate, like the Gaunts' family. Without muggles at all, the wizards would die out. – TimSparrow Aug 17 '17 at 9:47
  • 2
    @TimSparrow In my answer to Do wizards need Muggles? I explain why there are enough wizards where the population would be large enough for that not to happen. The Gaunts degenerated because they were choosing from a very small segment of wizard society, pure-blooded wizards in Britain from a specific list. Wizarding society is far larger than that, and large enough to prevent that. The number of wizards is at least 100,000, since that's the number at the Quidditch World Cup. – Bellatrix Aug 17 '17 at 15:01
  • He considered wizards like Tonks [and by extension, himself], who was born to a mother who married a wizard whose parents were both Muggles, lesser. – marcellothearcane Aug 20 '17 at 10:47
1

The reason why people oppose Voldemort is not that they think Muggles are necessary for the world; it is that they feel that killing Muggles is a moral crime, because Muggles are humans. As best expressed by Kingsley on Potterwatch in Deathly Hallows:

"I'd say that it's one short step from 'Wizards first' to 'Purebloods first,' and then to "Death Eaters,'" replied Kingsley. "We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving."

  • 1
    I realize that, but the question asks specifically about the world as a whole, regardless of people's moral preferences. The reason the last sentence mentions a dolphin rescuing Voldemort is because it seems to me that said dolphin (as well as many other endangered animals) should very much be on Voldemort's side in this conflict. Magic does not seem to interfere with nature in the same way as technology does, so anything that shifts the balance of power towards it should be welcome news to the dolphin. – Misha R Dec 18 '18 at 6:21
  • @MishaR Ah, perhaps the "Wizards could end up pretty happy once things settled" threw me off. – Alex Dec 18 '18 at 6:23
  • That's actually a good point. I edited my question to clarify that. And what the hell, +1 too. I do like the quote. It's pretty relevant these days. – Misha R Dec 18 '18 at 6:53
  • @MishaR Thanks! – Alex Dec 18 '18 at 7:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.