Probably the title I should have used.

I definitely see the existence of an unofficial movement of wizards helping muggles. It makes the most sense because there's bound to be hundreds of muggleborn wizards that feel like they could do so much with what's essentially superpowers.

Though the MoM in England might react badly. It's hard to say.

 

They are irrelevant.

I personally have no problem with wizards removing the memories of muggles, as long as I'm not one of those muggles

As for the question from the OP: No, wizards don't have to do shit for muggles.

 

From the HP wiki:

I don't think the state of the muggle world today would convince wizards that anything's changed since the 15th century.

 

It shouldn't even be an issue in the first place realistically. You have magic clearly being passed down biologically, magic having existed for at least five thousand years (ancient Egyptians), and magic giving clear benefits with better health and longer age not to mention the wielding magic itself part.

Unless there's been some global deadly magical plague wiping out the population every couple hundred years or magic itself being limited (are pure bloods right? :O ) the ability should have rapidly spread throughout the population worldwide when the worlds were connected.

The actual answer though is that it's a childrens story, and that shit isn't fun to read about so it's not relevant as an issue.

 

Consider the following:
(1) the starting point of wizardhood. We do not know the origin of magical humans.

(2) the average birth rate of the wizarding world. In the series we have only a handful of families with more than one child (and more than 2 children, e.g. the Weasleys and the Black sisters). Now this might be due to the war in Britain prior to Harry's birth (again, Harry's limited POV means we can't see the whole picture) but that may be another factor wizards haven't replaced muggles as the predominant human subspecies. Just because they have a longer lifespan, doesn't mean wizards are fertile longer.

 

Like everyone else said, I think it's a bad idea for the Statute to end for strictly humanitarian reasons.

Yes, wizards could solve a number of problems surprisingly easily. But I think there is one major problem with this: what exactly is the line with how much they should help? No one's going to complain about distributing Magic medicine, but what happens the moment someone suggests wizards get sent to fight ISIS? Or, for that matter, what happens when people argue they should start getting rid of dictators in other countries? Where would the line be drawn in what wizards can or can't do in the name of 'helping out the muggles'?

Personally, I think the Statute should end in the long term, with heavy emphasis on long term. That way, both societies could be realistically prepared for it, and it could be a peaceful transition. But simply doing it tomorrow would probably just launch World War 3. Hell, my HeadCanon is that the Statute was originally put in place after wizards helped create the horror of the Thirty Years War. For all the genuine good wizards can do, they are thinking nukes best contained to the Wizarding World until everyone can be sure they won't detonate.

 

I think the problem with your question is that it assumes the interference of the wizarding world will solve the world's problems rather than making them worse.

It is very similar to asking whether throwing money at world issues will actually solve them.

I don't think so, and the same goes for magic.

 

Well, it might solve some problems, but something as massively world-changing as wide-scale use of magic also likely to create a ton of new issues in the process. It often seems to be the way things work out: solve one problem, and two new issues caused by your solution crop up.

Also, I'm surprised nobody's pointed out that "Take over Muggle society for The Greater Good" was pretty much Grindewald and Dumbledore's plan back in their youth.

 

Cruel? No. In fact the very question is probable reason for the hypothetical non-interaction. Whether this is a hedge witch (un)able to cure a plague or disease, or say Lily is outraged that no one makes a potion to cure cancer; it is inherently holding against (or outright blaming) someone for not doing what they "should" have done. It's sort of the superhero problem. Where were you? Why didn't you help? You just made things worse. You're the real problem here.

As far as canon timeline is concerned it would appear muggles have vastly improved themselves in a very short duration AFTER they were separated. How would muggles progress if their homeless, food, disease, climate issues vanished? Would that not lead to a regression if issues just fixed themselves? A someone else stated it would require an unsupportable number of wizards to sort the muggles memories as well as do the good. They would effectively have to convert themselves to nearly a religious culture of selflessness. I am guessing none of us have embraced such a lifestyle. Again the very question seems pointed to someone else fixing the issue (exactly what muggles would expect of wizards). Not to be political but the rich, the government, the poor might be blamed for this or that when it is perceived by others that they can and should "just do that" (just give money, just support issue, just get a job). Nothing is so simple. Because wizards can doesn't mean they should. And if they did it doesn't mean and end to problems.

As a side point- So then what if they integrated? I believe wizards would be resented. Think of it, off the cuff- a one spell (or Knight Bus caliber) wizard replacing entire work forces and businesses, and becoming very rich, simply because he can cast a Pack!/Reparo spell and assemble machinery or fix it. All the vast muggle beauty products have now crashed in value. There's Goyle duplicating/increasing oil. There's Crabbe vanishing/destroying with Fiendfyre all of Englands garbage and making bank on it. You are thinking of things that can be solved with the impossible, but if the impossible is possible for a very select few then you can be sure there would be huge ramifications. Or if these instant solutions were to suddenly go away or magical problems arise that aren't easily fixed (say dragon pox plague epidemic) then would people react reasonably and accept that it can't be fixed miraculously? probably not.

 

I don't think it's cruel of wizards to not help muggles. I do think it's 'cruel' to prevent those who want to from doing so, which is part of what the statute prevents. Someone earlier mentioned that individual liberty is more important than being obligated to help others. Well, the statute limits liberty and both prevents and forces wizards to help (other wizards) and not help (muggles) at the same time.

Leaving aside that for a moment, let's discuss capability. A single wizard of Dumbledore's ability, if he so chose, would be able to solve the energy crisis in the span of an afternoon, just with spells that he has been shown capable of. Transfiguration, Gubrathian Fire and unbreakable charms would be able to make a working generator that would last forever. Hell a year's work could theoretically make fusion power a workable piece of technology.

If that's not a moral call to arms, I'm not sure what is, but as has been said; it wouldn't make for a good story so I fully accept it not happening in the series.

 

Three useless posts in a span of 15 minutes. If you are unable to actually contribute, why post at all?

 

Let me put it this way... if tomorrow a bunch of aliens were to descend and decide that our world is fucked up and then proceed to fix it how they see fit, how would you feel?

Hagrid said it best when he said, "everyone would want magical solutions to their problems."

And the problem with magical, insta-fix solutions is it robs people... in this case muggles, off the chance to fix it themselves taking away their shot at evolving not only as individuals but also as a society.

Necessity is the mother of invention and adversity inspires us to rise above them.

Take them away and you would have halted progress.

 

I forgot if anyone brought up either of these two points, but I think they're worth mentioning:

1. In the Dresden Files, Harry asked Ebenezer why it's a bad thing to use Magic to fight major injustices around the world. Ebenezer explained how it was a slippery slope to use Magic like that, and what's to stop someone from saying Magic should be used to fight America, which did and does pretty bad things.

2. Think about it this way: you're a 19th century European. You read about or even visited primitive African tribes with none of the Western World's technology or civilized thinking. Wouldn't the smart thing to do is to help them develop and help purge some of their more primitive ways? What's the worst that could happen.

I know the last one was a bit extreme, but I thought it was worth noting.

 

I do think it is cruel—for proven solutions, that is. Water, food; yes. But, do we have a guarantee that wizards have a cure-all for all that Muggles are ailed of? No, we don’t, so it would be unfair to impose in such a way on wizards. Furthermore, it would also be cruel to force wizards to help out.

And that’s the long and short of it. Not to mention that any wizarding help could be potentially disruptive to muggles’ lives, like so often charity work is in the real world, creating even more problems in the process for pursuit of an easy solution. An Aguamenti charm would solve a drought problem, but it also could potentially leave out of work well-diggers, hydraulic engineers and so on, and so forth.

More than whether is cruel or not, I think a more relevant question is:

What would be the true cost for both societies outside of individual perspective and/or self-satisfaction?

 

Aside from this not being the Dresden Files, the reason Ebenezer gave that speech was because allowing mortal politics to become part of the White Council would just divide it along national lines, eventually tearing it apart. The White Council is apolitical (when it comes to mortal problems), but they don't stop individual wizards from helping humanity. After all, Harry advertises himself in the Yellow Pages.

That's precisely what a lot of Westerners did, back in the colonial and enlightenment era. Mostly it was to make it easier to ransack the land and use the natives as workers, but some people did go over there to 'spread civilisation'. It was an incredibly racist attitude, but when basic necessities aren't being met, and aren't likely to be met if we just left them to themselves I would say there's a moral obligation to help. Whether that be through foreign aid, charity workers, etc. doesn't matter as long as the problem gets solved. It's the same for anyone whose basic needs aren't met, and it's one of the founding principles of western liberalism.

 

And it seems especially inapplicable because from what we see of the Harry Potter wizarding world, the various wizarding governments pretty much are more-or-less divided up along muggle national lines. They keep things secret to avoid getting dragged into muggle problems. It's ultimately an external issue: they don't want muggle affairs interfering in wizarding business.

In the Dresdenverse, the White Council stays out of mortal affairs because it wants to represent all wizards, regardless of nationality. The Council avoids getting pulled into mortal affairs to avoid causing internal rifts within the Council itself, not for fear of entanglement with mortals. Basically, the Council avoids anything that could threaten their status as the sole legitimate wizarding government.

 

Two words: Nuclear Weapons.

Us Muggles are already destructive enough with science. No matter how much good magic could do for society at large, someone some way would find a way to use magic in even more destructive ways than already exist.

Besides, mind manipulation spells are not permanent. Even the Imperious Curse can be resisted by those with a strong will, and you have to have a strong will to get anywhere near a position of political power.

By whatever ratio Muggles outnumber Witches and Wizards (I'm pretty sure it's by quite a bit), all it would take is one fundamentalist radical nutbag to say something like "Burn the Witch" and set off a country's nuclear weapons to "cleanse" the world of magicals.