It seems that the bite of a werewolf transmits the "condition", nobody is immune to it, and it cannot be cured.

Werewolves go on a rampage every month.

This means that during their lifetime they can transmit their condition to more people on average, than how many children normal humans can have.

How aren't there a lot more werewolves then?

I asked specifically for Harry Potter, but I'm open to answers from other fictional universes if their werewolves are very similar.

  • 6
    @NominSim Yes, but if a werewolf goes on a rampage once a month, and converts only one person per year, that would double the werewolf population each year. (And I assume 1/12 is a pretty bad success rate for werewolfs!) Thus, in ten years, a pair of werewolfs would be over 1,000. In twenty years, 1 million werewolfs. In thirty years, 1 billion werewolfs. So it would only take roughly 33-34 years to take out the entire world. – corsiKa Oct 4 '12 at 16:07
  • 3
    @corsiKa Yea, I can do the math. However you are assuming that werewolves never die, that they all decide to turn people, and that they can turn 1 person given only 12 chances out of 365 days. If you want to take deaths out of the equation, and make such wide assumptions, then we can say that every two humans can have a child every 9 months. Even if we take only 50% growth vs the 100% for werewolves, if we started now with the current population and 2 werewolves they would eventually catch up...after 1 billion 162 million 289 thousand 738 and a half years. – NominSim Oct 4 '12 at 17:33
  • 4
    But we have an established rate of human growth: nowhere in the world is there more than 10 children per family on average. And as a married man with kids, good luck on the '9 months apart thing'. They don't let you even brush their hair for the first 2 months for crying out loud. ;-[ – corsiKa Oct 4 '12 at 17:38
  • 1
    " for crying out loud" is spot on :))))) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 4 '12 at 18:07
  • 4
    I think it's because wizards kill werewolves. – b_jonas Oct 4 '12 at 18:38

In most stories, the werewolf transmits the condition to the victim - assuming the victim survives the attack. Werewolves are incredibly strong and vicious; I imagine that most would not survive to ever become werewolves themselves. You also have werewolves who specifically fight their condition - like Lupin who actively takes potions to resist the change.

Depending on the universe, you also have other factors. In many stories, there are werewolf hunters who keep the population in check. Take Buffy, for example. Veruca shows up in Sunnydale and is brutally attacking people. She even intends to kill Willow. She's being tracked by a werewolf hunter who also discovers Oz. Oz, on the other hand, specifically locks himself up - keeping him from getting out and attacking others.

  • 4
    Lupin is not the best example - Wolfesbane potion was a very recent invention in HP universe. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 4 '12 at 13:38
  • 2
    The point is more that he specifically does not embrace being a werewolf and is afraid of what he can do as one. – phantom42 Oct 4 '12 at 13:46
  • 2
    Sure, but your question was regarding why there aren't more werewolves out there. I offer the idea that it is partially due to at least some werewolves intentionally avoiding turning others. – phantom42 Oct 4 '12 at 14:27
  • 1
    @phantom42: just as there are a few humans who intentionally don't have children. While I agree that those werewolves might have some effect, we don't know anything about how many there are. One turning a human nearly every month can offset hundreds of those who intentionally lock themselves in. – vsz Oct 4 '12 at 14:42
  • 5
    @DVK The Wolfsbane potion is a recent invention, but the desire not to harm another human when you turn isn't. Just look at Lupin during his time as a student at Hogwarts - he went to the Shrieking Shack so there would be nobody for him to attack, then later on had James and Sirius to keep him in check. – Anthony Grist Oct 4 '12 at 17:58

Hey, remember that time when that dog got rabies, and then a day later, every single other dog on the continent had it, except for a small band of survivors huddled in a basement?

Cracked on Zombie Infection

Basically biting is not a great way of transmitting a disease specially when your victim is your best predator and the disease has a high mortality rate. And that's not counting the fact that it can only be transmitted during a few days of the year.

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.