Magic In A Vaguely Realistic "Real World"

[Anoth]

Apparently, despite not existing, witchcraft is illegal in some places. Not the pretense of witchcraft to fool gullible people, the actual practice of witchcraft.

This article Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft depicts the witch-fighting police unit of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I agree that some regimes might be very restrictive.



Didn't the US ban alcohol in a recent time? I don't think the regime changed much since the 20s. You just need to malign something enough in a free society to have voter back a lot of strange laws.

Also, think of trade wars. If the US was behind in the magitech race AND magitech was, as the OP explains, not enough a gamechanger to be "too good to pass", I could very well envision Boeing demonstrating that magic-supported planes are "unsafe" to try and convince lawmakers that the FAA should forbid the magic Airbus (or vice-versa, depending on which company is losing the magitech arm race). It wouldn't be enough to provoke an outright ban on magic but it's a field where I can see it happening even in democracies (I was not picking on your post, sorry if it felt that way, just providing thoughts for the OP to refine his setting if he sees something fitting).



Patenting.

In liberal democracies, according to how magic work, its application could be patented to make the competition die out.

How well has that been working for movies and music and books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would say a new aristocracy would form around those that mastered magic. They would make So much for their services that they would be the new elite. They would become the new bill gates, bezo, Elon musk. They wouldn’t even have to do it
Violently. Just by selling their services. Being hired as consultants. And it wouldn’t discriminate. Anyone that could find a spell with the intelligence to learn and cast it would be a very successful person. Governments would hate that kind of upward mobility. But really couldn’t do anything about it.

I think you may be missing a key component there.

If magic is a skill you can learn (or more accurately about a dozen skills you can learn) like any other, it’d be just as likely to disrupt the historical cycle of new aristocracies as to beget a new turn of the cycle.

 

[Anoth]

I think you may be missing a key component there.

If magic is a skill you can learn (or more accurately about a dozen skills you can learn) like any other, it’d be just as likely to disrupt the historical cycle of new aristocracies as to beget a new turn of the cycle.

That’s exactly what I mean. A new aristocracy would form like Elon musk, bezo, bill gates, etc

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Magic can be made to charge mobile devices without any secondary device.

Harder to do with a car, because it’s more power and you’re only interacting with the car while driving, but still possible eventually, and even a trickle slows down the loss of battery life.

Busses are easier because so many people interact with them.

In the future, the people in a space station are part of what keeps it functioning in terms of its magical system elements and keeping the lights on, though better conversion between energy types also means a square foot of solar panel also gets exponentially more electricity into the system.

Power alone would make it hard to ban magic and succeed as a state.

And that’s before we get into the...grassroots nature of magic. There are no ivory towers. Even amongst the Wise, there is no class division where magic is concentrated in a single class of people.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Apparently, despite not existing, witchcraft is illegal in some places. Not the pretense of witchcraft to fool gullible people, the actual practice of witchcraft.

This article Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft depicts the witch-fighting police unit of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I agree that some regimes might be very restrictive.

Sure, but the thing is that those restrictive regimes will either have to adapt or be left behind by the times. It would be like a country choosing to ignore electricity for ideological reasons. A country COULD do so. They'd have zero chance of competing with electricity using countries and would almost certainly be functionally irrelevant.

Even having oil wouldn't be of much use, since in a world where photons can be converted much more efficiently to energy (as indicated by the star drive that was mentioned by the OP upthread) oil isn't nearly as valuable.

Didn't the US ban alcohol in a recent time? I don't think the regime changed much since the 20s. You just need to malign something enough in a free society to have voter back a lot of strange laws.

Prohibition only happened due to an unexpected confluence of events. Essentially, the politicians were convinced that it was why the voting populace wanted, but were also convinced that it would never pass. So, they all voted for it to look good with the voters but then we're surprised when it passed.

Even then, alcohol use was quite prevalent during prohibition. In other words, it didn't really work.

Finally, it only lasted about 13 years. A blip in the grand scheme of history.

Also, think of trade wars. If the US was behind in the magitech race AND magitech was, as the OP explains, not enough a gamechanger to be "too good to pass", I could very well envision Boeing demonstrating that magic-supported planes are "unsafe" to try and convince lawmakers that the FAA should forbid the magic Airbus (or vice-versa, depending on which company is losing the magitech arm race). It wouldn't be enough to provoke an outright ban on magic but it's a field where I can see it happening even in democracies (I was not picking on your post, sorry if it felt that way, just providing thoughts for the OP to refine his setting if he sees something fitting).

I doubt it. Firstly, the US would probably be a leader in magi-tech development. If they'd be behind in anything, it would be regulation.

Additionally, it's far less likely to me that Boeing would try to smear magic than that they would adopt magi-tech and use it to develop the most cutting edge planes that they've ever made.

Patenting.

In liberal democracies, according to how magic work, its application could be patented to make the competition die out.

There are limits on what can be patented. While patents can stifle innovation to a degree, just look to the tech industry to see that the industry is flourishing despite patents and patent trolls. I see no reason to believe that magi-tech would be any different.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That’s exactly what I mean. A new aristocracy would form like Elon musk, bezo, bill gates, etc

My point is exactly that such a thing is unlikely, IMO, because magic is too grassroots, and too transformative once proliferated.

Combined with modern tech, it will allow greater proliferation of independent entrepreneurship than ever before, on a scale that could easily mean that there simply isn’t room for people like Bezos and Gates, whose wealth is unavoidably dependent on exclusivity, competition busting, etc.

It could eventually lead to a post energy scarcity world, as well, but that’s further into the future than the focus of the thread.

 

[Anoth]

My point is exactly that such a thing is unlikely, IMO, because magic is too grassroots, and too transformative once proliferated.

Combined with modern tech, it will allow greater proliferation of independent entrepreneurship than ever before, on a scale that could easily mean that there simply isn’t room for people like Bezos and Gates, whose wealth is unavoidably dependent on exclusivity, competition busting, etc.

It could eventually lead to a post energy scarcity world, as well, but that’s further into the future than the focus of the thread.

Well. I see what u mean. I don’t think it would happen that way because I think the amount of people that could use it would be small. Very much like the tech giants. But it’s a fantasy setting. One way is as good as another as long as you can tell good stories. I don’t think every Tom, dick, and Harry would be able to use it. But if they could it would probaly be like you are describing. I am thinking only those with the highest iq’s and discipline would be casting and learning magic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well. I see what u mean. I don’t think it would happen that way because I think the amount of people that could use it would be small. Very much like the tech giants. But it’s a fantasy setting. One way is as good as another as long as you can tell good stories. I don’t think every Tom, dick, and Harry would be able to use it. But if they could it would probaly be like you are describing. I am thinking only those with the highest iq’s and discipline would be casting and learning magic.

I can see where you’re coming from, but since the premise is that it’s just a skill, by default, the prevalence of people who learn at least a little magic won’t be a small percentage.

The future era actually assumes that most people at least know some basic workaday magic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Pearls are nice, but they don't generally make peoples' lives easier.

They’re a way, like any gem, of holding (or demonstrating) wealth in a portable- and concealable- form that can accrue value. The ability to own them- and similar forms of wealth- is an economically measurable positive effect.

And restrictions on ownership would be a measurable negative. (Especially with a death penalty involved.)

Why does it matter if one gemstone is prohibited if others are allowed? Because their relative values are not in lockstep, but vary independently of each other. That distorts the market and can make or break fortunes. Example: in 1967, a 1carat flawless, D grade, round brilliant cut diamond was worth $1000. For the same amount of money, you could buy a ton of blue chalcedony. Thirty years later, that diamond was worth $16k. The ton of blue chalcedony, OTOH, was worth over $1M.

If, arguendo, the price of pearls skyrocketed in comparison to other gems or commodities, only those with permission to own them would see the benefit. That’s the definition of an artificial source of income inequality.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I was under the impression that you were making those claims about a democracy (or capitalistic democratic republic).

Sure, I agree the more repressive and/or ideologically motivated regimes might be extremely restrictive, at least initially.

I was simply making a point about human societies in general.

But even free societies have their....quirks. At the risk of being too political, in the USA, 7 states bar atheists from holding public office. Ignoring all the RW politics and legality, simply substitute “magic user” for ”atheist” in this thread’s version of the USA, and you see how this hypothetical COULD shape up, even here.

My point was regarding relatively free societies, where things like conveniences carry significant weight. I mean lawmakers today could try to outlaw something like Facebook. Facebook would undoubtedly push back on the basis of free speech or the like, but more importantly can you imagine the millions of indignant Facebook users who would find themselves suddenly motivated to make certain that those lawmakers never saw office again?

Or if Facebook isn't your thing, imagine if lawmakers tried to outlaw automobiles. Dangerous, game changing, and arguably not good for the environment. It would be tantamount to political suicide. There are few politicians who'd be stupid enough to even attempt it, irrespective of their personal feelings on the matter.

The devil is always in the details, though. If mind control magic is relatively simple- or at least not outright impossible- in this setting, it can be used to sway the vote.

The way I see it, in this world it is far more likely that some tech mogul or engineer gets their hands on magic before the government and finds that they have a huge leg up on the competition.

If the ability to perform magic is randomly distributed, there is no reason for this to be true.

If “The Gift” is associated with other known human attributes, that will affect the odds depending on what it’s associated with- eye color? Hair color? Ethnicity? Left or right handedness? Musical talent? Genius? Some genetic defect?

Your level of infestation with symbiotic critters like...”manachlorians”?

 

[Fanaelialae]

They’re a way, like any gem, of holding (or demonstrating) wealth in a portable- and concealable- form that can accrue value. The ability to own them- and similar forms of wealth- is an economically measurable positive effect.

And restrictions on ownership would be a measurable negative. (Especially with a death penalty involved.)

Why does it matter if one gemstone is prohibited if others are allowed? Because their relative values are not in lockstep, but vary independently of each other. That distorts the market and can make or break fortunes. Example: in 1967, a 1carat flawless, D grade, round brilliant cut diamond was worth $1000. For the same amount of money, you could buy a ton of blue chalcedony. Thirty years later, that diamond was worth $16k. The ton of blue chalcedony, OTOH, was worth over $1M.

If, arguendo, the price of pearls skyrocketed in comparison to other gems or commodities, only those with permission to own them would see the benefit. That’s the definition of an artificial source of income inequality.




I was simply making a point about human societies in general.

But even free societies have their....quirks. At the risk of being too political, in the USA, 7 states bar atheists from holding public office. Ignoring all the RW politics and legality, simply substitute “magic user” for ”atheist” in this thread’s version of the USA, and you see how this hypothetical COULD shape up, even here.


The devil is always in the details, though. If mind control magic is relatively simple- or at least not outright impossible- in this setting, it can be used to sway the vote.



If the ability to perform magic is randomly distributed, there is no reason for this to be true.

If “The Gift” is associated with other known human attributes, that will affect the odds depending on what it’s associated with- eye color? Hair color? Ethnicity? Left or right handedness? Musical talent? Genius? Some genetic defect?

Your level of infestation with symbiotic critters like...”manachlorians”?

That's not the case here though.

The OP has stated that using magic against people is difficult. Pretty sure that mind control was specifically called out as being extremely difficult.

Additionally, the magic is explicitly skill based. Even an average person has the capacity to learn basic spells that can improve their day to day lives.

It doesn't matter whether magic users would be barred from office so long as they have a strong lobby. And I think they'd have an extraordinarily strong lobby, for the reasons I've already mentioned upthread. You don't need to be able to cast a spell to be pro magic. You just need to value your mind reading tv or the fact that magic solar panels can eliminate the country's dependence on oil nearly entirely.

Going back to the pearls, yes a pearl can have value. However, apart from its subjective value and perhaps aesthetic quality, it does not provide any convenience of itself. You might be able to sell a pearl to buy a magical fork that makes any food you eat with it the most delicious thing you've ever tasted, but it is the magic fork in this example that has real value as a convenience. The pearl is simply a possible means to obtaining that convenience. The convenience is arguably the thing of real value here. Would you trade access to all media (internet, tv, books, etc) for ten million dollars? I don't think I would. To me the enjoyment provided by those forms of entertainment far exceeds 10 million dollars.

Similar situation with the pearl and the magic convenience. You can potentially ban certain forms of "currency". Some people might grumble but it really doesn't impact the average person. But no one can save the idiot who tries to ban TV. (Referring to free societies here.) You can have my pearls, but you'll take my magic fork of overwhelming deliciocity only when you pry it from my cold, dead fist. That's just the nature of people, at least in my experience. (Obviously I'm speaking sociologically; specific individuals may vary.)