Pangea

Table of contents

In my lore, "Pangea" can refer to two distinct things: in the context of Pan, Pangea is the land (and therefore it excludes water, underwater settlements, space etc.) where everything you can think of happens somewhere in it. In the context of Kora (the layer of Earth separate from Gaia), Pangea is an island with a society based on an ideology called Demichronism, which will be explained in this page. Pangea is not supposed to be a utopia nor a dystopia, just a thought experiment. You can read this page to see the thought process behind this fictional country. This page will explain Pangea in the context of Kora.

1: Introduction

Pangea in the context of Kora is an island based on an ideology called Demichronism. The name "Pangea" symbolizes the meaning of "the land of everything", and it's also a geological metaphor for all cultures, ideas, ethnicities, services, medias and products coexisting in the same land, before everything got separated into different nations. The flag of Pangea is the same as the polyamory flag (which is oddly similar to the flag of the Philippines lmao).

Pangea is a society based on a division between free time and work time. Each of the two have different characteristics, which will be explained below:

1.1: Free time

Free time is a time where people approximately "have everything they want", in a solipsistic sense. That is, the desire must ideally only affect oneself. During free time, therefore, Pangea as a society tries its best to give you the sensorial experience of what you want, and the desire is considered "satisfied" regardless of whether or not it's "real". During free time, you are considered a customer, even when you don't buy anything, and you can have "everything you want" in the sense that the variety of products and services available in an accessible radius (usually within the same city, or the same part of the city if it's a large city) must be as high as possible. The variety of products and services available within said accessible radius is called alpha, and the goal of Pangea is to maximize that. "Wish" in this context is meant in a very broad sense: if the pipes in your house are broken and leaking, it is your wish for those pipes to be fixed, and therefore you call a plumber, who'll fulfill your wish. For each wish, there should be at least one person within an accessible radius who will fulfill your wish. Of course, since Pangea is a physical, non-solipsistic reality, wishes costs money: a car costs like a car, it's not free. Also, wishes that are physically or technologically unfeasible cannot be fulfilled. Extreme wishes, such as torture, abuse etc. can only be fulfilled by either Matchers (customers who have that specific wish, and therefore are not workers) or actors, which perform an act that looks and sounds like the one expressed by the wisher, except that it's fake. The people who will fulfill your wishes in your free time can be of two types: Matchers and Workers, though the latter is more common. Matchers are customers who have wishes matching yours. For instance, if you want a hug, and someone else in their free time also wants a hug, and both of you are down with hugging each other, you two are Matchers. Matchers are not a category of people: for example, even your childhood friends (spontaneous, non-paid) who hang around with you and have fun together are considered Matchers. It's simply consensual customer-customer interactions, nothing more than that, the name "Matchers" is used for brevity, to avoid saying "consensual customer-customer interactions" or "other customers who want to interact with you" every time, that's really it. So, in order to understand this page, it's important to remember that "Matcher" simply means another customer who interacts with you consensually. Interactions with Matchers are the least expensive, since you usually don't pay them (though it's allowed to exchange money consensually between matchers during free time), and are more spontaneous and genuine, but the downside is that Matchers don't owe you anything. They can refuse to fulfill your wish (which matches their wish) for any reason, or even for no reason at all. With a Matcher, there is no guarantee of having what you want. Furthermore, having a Matcher who fulfills your wish is not as common as your wish being granted by a worker. Usually, wishes are granted by workers.

Note: regarding what wish-fulfillment means: the "wish-fulfillment" in free time is meant to be an approximation of life in a virtual reality where one has everything they want. In ancient times, the closest metaphor would be a "dream". That means, it doesn't have to be real. If the sensorial perception of the wish is fulfilled, then the wish is considered fulfilled. Here's an example: let's say Person A is a sadistic customer who wants to torture someone with electric shocks: they can pay to have an experience where they take control of (fake) electric knobs, and a worker, that is, an actor whose job is to specifically get paid to pretend they get tortured, will pretend that they are electrocuted, with a very high degree of realism. Even though it's fake, and even if the customer knows it's fake, the wish is considered fulfilled, especially if the act was so good that it was undistinguishable from the real thing. Another example is, let's say that someone wants a certain book to be banned. Clearly such wish conflicts with other customers' wishes. Such wish cannot coexist with the wish of other customers to read the book, but since what Pangea tries to approximate in one's free time is the sensorial perception of the wish being fulfilled, one can fulfill that wish in that sense. That is, if someone wants a book to be banned, they can pay to participate in a realistic, immersive act that depicts the book being banned, with paid actors, headlines, speeches about why the book was banned and so on. You can even pay to get a fictional newspaper article saying that "[your name] has won: [book name] has at last been banned from our country! Here's the story of what happened". The book was not actually banned, it's just a show, but the sensorial experience is the same (as close as possible) as it would be if the book was actually banned. It's not fraud, since if you're paying for the experience of getting a book to be banned or to torture someone, you're told that what you're experiencing is a fictional LARP (live-action roleplay). There is, however, a way to legally torture someone: torturing a Matcher who specifically wants to be tortured. However, there is no systemic guarantee that such a person will exist or will be available for you. Actors who pretend are always available, though. Pangea does not require any worker to be tortured as part of their job, it's illegal to torture a worker, or a non-consensual customer. Only a consensual customer (a matcher) can be tortured, and as such, there is no guarantee of availability. Same thing goes for any other extreme wish, such as seeing violent gladiator fights and so on: those exist, but are fake, an act, and nobody gets injured. It is perfectly legal to wish to be tortured and get it, though, if that's what one wants, though you have to sign many waivers since it's such a serious request, but it will eventually be granted.

Work time will be explained below:

1.2: Work time

Work time is a time where people (now considered "workers") fulfill other people's wishes, but it's not like each worker must do everything a customer says, but rather, each worker has their own role (known as "gamma"), and they must only perform tasks related to their role. For example, a customer cannot pay a (normal) plumber for a passionate kiss, for example, because that's not the gamma of the plumber: a plumber only performs plumber-related tasks. However, since for (almost) every wish, there is a worker whose job is to fulfill that type of wish, there are professional partners who you can pay to give you a passionate kiss, including a "flirty plumber" who can give you a "plumber partner experience" or something along those lines, but it's more likely that in that case, the plumbing is fake and only done for the aesthetics/roleplay, and that a real plumber wouldn't do that, as it'd be unrealistic to create too many real combinations of highly skilled jobs... however, even wishes involving very complex or unusual combinations must be satisfied, even though the sensorial experience itself is sufficient for the wish to be considered "fulfilled". Some wishes have more components, for example, one may wish for a "plumber to lover experience" roleplay, and they can have it, though in that case it's more likely that the act of plumbing is fake and it's only done for the aesthetics/roleplay. As said before, extreme wishes that require torture, suffering and so on, are available only as an act, or true (but rarely?) only if there exist customers whose wish is specifically to receive that treatment. In addition, requesting torture for oneself is legal, though one has to sign many waivers, since it's such a serious request. There is guarantee of service when it comes to the (fake) act, and the real thing towards oneself, but the real thing towards others is not a guarantee, and perhaps it's rare, though I'm not exactly sure about how rare or common it is exactly.

All jobs must have a low "delta", that is, variation in their work time. That means the tasks of their job (the "gamma", which is the only thing that a Pangean citizen can be coerced into doing) should be specific and shouldn't vary too much (e.g. an actual plumber cannot be asked to kiss a customer), in order to prevent asynchronicities, which will be explained in the section below:

1.3: Asynchronicities

Asynchronicities are situations in which something that you do in your free time has consequences (positive or negative) in your work time, and they are illegal in Pangea. For instance, let's say an employee expresses a certain opinion in their free time: if at work things get more unpleasant (e.g. being made to perform more unpleasant or extreme tasks, or being fired) because of that, that's an asynchronicity and it's illegal. Likewise, if an employee in their free time does something beneficial to the company and they get promoted or something, that's also an asynchronicity and it's illegal. One of the ways to prevent asynchronicities is to have low delta (low variation day after day) for the workers, but it's not like each day is a copy of another, it's just a variation low enough to prevent asynchronicites. Note that the low variation only refers to the gamma, that is, the range of tasks that a worker must perform. For example, a comic book worker will work on different scenes of the same comic, maybe even on different comics, but they won't be made to fix pipes in someone's house or kiss a customer: that's outside the gamma of a comic book worker. There are some limited situations where variation during work can occur, but it must be proven that an asynchronicity has not occurred. For pragmatic reasons, regarding asynchronicities the boss is guilty unless proven innocent, so if significant variation occurs to the gamma of an employee, there must be undisputable proof that an asynchronicity has not occurred. If for some reason in your free time you discover a way to improve the quality of your work, or to automate something, you can be promoted at work if and only if you implement that method while at work, and it wouldn't be an asynchronicity, because you'd be promoted for something you did while at work, not for something you did while in your free time. However, you just get promoted because your work has improved, you do not get promoted for discovering your method (which is something that happened in your free time, and you cannot get promoted for that!). That means, if someone else follows your method, they get promoted in the same way you did, no less. The fact you discovered that method is completely irrelevant since you discovered it during your free time, and therefore you cannot be promoted for discovering it (it would be an asynchronicity, which would be illegal), you can only be promoted because the quality of your work has improved during your work time, since it's something that happens during your work time. There is, however, a loophole that allows asynchronous rewards during free time: the employer/boss and the employee can consensually meet during their free time and the employer/boss can legally give money to the employee during said free time, when both of them are matchers to each other. However, as with any interaction between matchers, there is no guarantee. The government does not consider that "a promotion", nor an "asynchronous reward" (which would be illegal), just a consensual interaction between customers. So, if your boss then blackmails you and says "if you do X in your free time, I won't give you the additional money anymore", you can't sue your boss, because you have accepted the interaction in your free time. By interacting with matchers, you implicitly consent to the possibility of interruption of an interaction, just like when a friend says "if you don't do X, I won't be your friend anymore". So, if you accept that additional money (which is completely informal, it's legal but not officially recognized), you also implicitly accept the possibility of such type of blackmail, and you have no legal protection against that. It's up to you to accept the additional money or not.

More information about the low delta and asynchronicites: the reason why work in Pangea has to have low variation is not just about efficiency but also to prevent that an action performed in free time has consequences in work time (an event known as "asynchronicity"). By making work have low variation, asynchronicities are prevented, or at least minimized. However, it's not like the variation is so low that every day is literally identical: some variation is allowed, but of what kind? The general rule of thumb is this: variation in work is allowed if and only if the "worst-case scenario" neither encourages nor discourages the person to do or not do something in their free time. The "worst-case scenario" is defined as this: "whenever this person does X in their free time, their work time has characteristics Y". Teams of lawyers and psychologists evaluate the allowed variation: if not for every single individual, then they provide "templates" to follow. Furthermore, the psychological data of each individual collected during school helps, too. To make a concrete example, let's say that someone as a work does "professional companion that plays fighting games with paying customers". Fighting games as a category is quite broad, so the worker one day may be playing Tekken, another day Street Fighter and so on. That variation is allowed, but why? Because even in the worst-case scenario that, if it occurs that whenever that person does X (for example, drinking alcohol) in their free time, then the next day that person has to play Street Fighter instead of Tekken, such variation cannot realistically be used as punishment nor as a reward. The worker's freedom to drink alcohol during their free time is not impacted. However, if that same worker can be asked to clean the bathroom of the workplace whenever that worker drinks alcohol, then that introduces a risk, namely, that whenever that worker drinks alcohol in their free time, that person the next day at work is asked to clean the bathroom, discouraging that person from doing drinking alcohol in their free time, making free time not truly free. Of course this is merely an example, you can substitute "drinking alcohol" and "cleaning the bathroom" with anything else. The "worst-case scenario" (a worker being asked to perform a specific task as a direct consequence of an action taken in their free time) is considered, and if the variation can be considered a punishment or a reward, that variation is forbidden. Generally speaking, Pangean workplaces err on the "safe side" and disallow pretty much any variation unless it's crystal clear that the variation cannot be weaponized (Pangean law is also very strict on this). Because of that, there must be a worker whose specific job is to clean the bathroom of either just that workplace, or someone you can hire to clean various bathrooms of various workplaces. Because of weak causal isolation (which is about to be illustrated), it is preferred for people who clean bathrooms (or do any job in general) to be those who experience the least amount of negative mental states in doing that specific job, instead of random people doing random jobs (which is seen by the Pangean government as an unoptimized scenario).

Since some scenarios that customers may want can get incredibly specific, the delta cannot always be super low, for example, if customers request some insanely specific interaction. In that case, workers are divided into "clusters", where their gamma may vary a little bit, but it's always in the same category of tasks, so the delta (the variation of the gamma) is high enough that it doesn't require trillions of workers just to satisfy all possible combinations, but it's low enough that it won't cause their variation to be exploited for asynchronicities. The worker is still safe from asynchronicities, while at the same time allowing the Pangean workforce to fill the alpha.

1.4: Causal isolation

In a virtual reality where everyone lives in their own reality where they have everything they want, one's actions have absolutely no impact on other people. Pangea is not such virtual reality, but it tries to approximate those characteristics during free time, whereas in work time, the low delta means it's quite similar day after day, avoiding unpleasant surprises. That means, what other people do, think or belief has little to no impact on anyone else's life. This also means that the religious/philosophical/ideological composition of society itself has little to no impact on the life of an individual. Causal isolation means that each individual is shielded from other people's actions and beliefs. Of course, since it's a physical, shared reality, the causal isolation is not as absolute as it would be in a virtual reality, but Pangea tries to maximize causal isolation. Everyone can live the life they want in their free time, regardless of what other people do or believe. The opposite of causal isolation is causal contamination: when the fulfillment of another customer's wish "contaminates" your own individual experience in your free time. Due to Pangea being a physical, shared reality, causal contamination cannot be entirely eliminated, but it's reduced to its minimum. Basically, in your free time, you only interact either with workers whose job is to interact with you in that specific way, and/or with matchers (other people in their free time who consensually interact with you), you don't interact with people outside of those.

Causal isolation is divided into two types: strong causal isolation and weak causal isolation. Strong causal isolation is the causal isolation of the free time, which is the time where one's sensorial experiences must approximate "having everything one wants". Weak causal isolation is the causal isolation of the work time, and the rule is: among all possible scenarios that give the customer what they want (in terms of sensorial experience), the sensorial experience of the worker must have the lowest amount of unwanted states as possible. Here are some examples of weak causal isolation

• In Pangea, it's legal to pay a worker whose job is to pretend to be tortured by you e.g. you control fake electric knobs, and the worker pretends to be electrocuted. It would be illegal in Pangea to actually torture a worker, and it would be weak causal contamination (the violation of weak causal isolation), because actually torturing a worker would create a lot more unwanted mental states in the worker than it would be necessary in order to give the customer the same sensorial experience.
• If you work in a job where you are not required to interact with customers, coworkers or your boss while working, e.g. you're translating text from a foreign language to the Pangean language, or you're animating a cartoon character, or any other solitary job, you're allowed to listen to music with your earphones while performing the task, as long as that does not impact your productivity. Another consequence of weak causal isolation is that, during a pause or when for any reason a worker doesn't have to work at that particular moment, the worker may as well watch porn on their device or even on the professional computer! The only thing to keep in mind is to make sure a coworker does not see it, but work environments are built for that privacy in mind anyway. If a coworker actively peeps on your device, then that doesn't count as causal contamination, as the coworker themself has actively decided to look at what someone else is watching, therefore voluntarily exposing their own eyes to potentially anything. The reason why watching porn is allowed at work during moments when one does not actively work is because weak causal isolation states that among all possible situations that successfully complete the task, the one with the least unwanted mental states for the worker is prioritized. That means, as long as the worker does their job with the speed and quality they're supposed to do their job, anything else is irrelevant (provided it doesn't violate any law): someone whose job is to animate cartoons can listen to an erotic, sexually explicit ASMR audio/roleplay while animating a cartoon. That's allowed.

But there is an exception: suppose that, when an animation worker listens to a sexual ASMR audio, they work more slowly or do a more sloppy job at animating. In that case, listening to such audios is not allowed (for the workers whose work is negatively impacted by that). The content of such audios is totally irrelevant, but it impacts the quality and/or speed of the worker, which is a bad thing. But if the speed and quality remains the same, then anything else is irrelevant. And if the speed and quality of the worker for some reason increases from a specific enhancement (e.g. maybe lo-fi music? Or even porn audios if for some reason it increases the speed and quality of the work, lol), then that enhancement is actively encouraged. In Pangea, the Gaian concept of "Not Safe For Work" essentially does not exist. The only requirement is that the speed and quality of the work is not impacted, and that no coworker has their senses contaminated against their will (e.g. you can listen to anything with headphones/earphones but obviously not with loudspeakers). However, of course, if your job involves interacting with a customer, then you're not allowed to distract yourself with media while working... well, unless your specific job is a professional companion that watches movies with a customer... but even then, you have to watch the movie, not distract yourself on a phone or otherwise unrelated media (as the customer may feel disappointed or ignored if you do that, decreasing the quality of the service you're providing). There is one exception, of course: suppose a worker who interacts with customers listens to low volume music with earphones and is perfectly able to understand the customer and perform the task correctly with the same speed and quality as they do without listening to that music. In that case it's allowed, but only as long as the earphones are not visible to the customer, and the music cannot be heard at all to the customer. For example, a specific type of earphones that are similar to the airpods conceptually, and are hidden behind hair, a wig or a hat, and the audio cannot be heard at all by the customer, and the worker is not at all distracted, then in that case it's allowed (again, even erotic audios, the content is irrelevant). However, if there are reports of the worker getting distracted or asking "sorry, can you repeat that please?" due to being distracted by the audio, that worker is no longer allowed to listen to media while working. In order to be given permission to listen to media, the worker must prove that the work is not impacted negatively. If it is, the permission is revoked, and of course this applies to any job, regardless if it involves interacting with a customer or if it's solitary. Another funny example of weak causal isolation is this: suppose there's a worker whose specific job is to watch a movie with a customer, and perhaps even comment on the movie if the customer requests that. If that worker has already seen that movie and remembers the plot very well, then the worker can put on a mask that depicts open human eyes (with the condition that the overall effect looks realistic, but in Pangea there are masks for that), and they can close their eyes, put on some airpod-like earphones, listen to low volume music (with the condition that the worker still hears the movie so they know which portion of the movie they're at... this is in order to be able to make funny comments on the movie if the customer requests that), and go on like that. Of course, the worker is not allowed to fall asleep, but that is simply because a worker who sleeps cannot perform their job, especially if the customer requested the worker to occasionally make funny comments. Furthermore, if the customer does not request comments on the movie or to talk to the customer while watching the movie or to perform any action like eating popcorn, then the worker is allowed to put on that mask that depicts human open eyes, close their eyes and fall asleep, even if the worker has never seen that movie. This is because in Pangea, free time means you can request any sensorial experience for yourself, but the sensorial experience of others is totally irrelevant and you cannot make any demands on that. That means, if the sensorial experience of having someone who watches a movie with you can be replicated by a worker who is sleeping while watching the movie, with a specific mask that makes them look like they're actually watching the movie and the mask is realistic enough, then it does not matter if the worker is actually watching the movie or not: only the customer's sensorial experience is relevant, not anyone else's. A customer may feel disappointed by this rule, so in order to avoid this loophole, they may request a worker who occasionally (and the customer can even specify the frequency!) makes funny comments about the movie. This guarantees that the worker will actually see the movie (since they cannot perform their job otherwise). Even if the worker already knows that movie by heart, they have at the very least to be listening to it in order to perform their job (that is, occasionally making funny comments), therefore guaranteeing a shared sense of company.

A good way to visualize weak causal isolation is this: imagine that there's a list of thousands (or any arbitrarily large number) of different situations that all lead to the outcome "everyone has (the sensorial perception of) everything they want in their free time", approximating a solipsistic virtual reality where everyone has everything they want, but in a physical reality instead. That's free time in Pangea, and the characteristic of having everything one wants is called strong causal isolation (called that way because it isolates everyone in their own version of reality, so to speak, so anything that other people do in their free time has no impact on your free time). Each of those situations have a certain amount of unwanted mental states for the workers. Now, imagine all of those situations being ranked. The one with the least amount of unwanted mental states for the workers is the one that Pangea tries its best to implement. For instance, what's the purpose of an animator who animates cartoons? The answer is: to produce cartoons which will then be watched by customers (people in their free time) who want to watch it. So, among all situations that lead to the existence of that cartoon, the situation with the least unwanted mental states for the animator is the one prioritized. That means, compare these two situations: an animator wants to listen to music (with earphones) while animating cartoons: situation 1 is one in which the animator is not allowed to listen to music while animating, whereas situation 2 is one in which the animator is allowed to listen to music while animating. Assuming that listening to music does not impact the speed and quality of the animation: the free time of the customer who wants to watch that specific cartoon remains unvaried. Since situation 2 (where the worker is allowed to listen to music with earphones while animating) is the one with less unwanted mental states for the worker, situation 2 is applied. One may wonder, why is it that if the animator's speed and quality of the work decreases, then their permission to listen to music while working is revoked? Because if the animator's speed and quality decreases, then that is not a situation that maximizes "everyone has everything they want during their free time", since there are less cartoons to watch and/or the quality of said cartoons is lower. However, if the quality and speed of the animator's work do not decrease, then to the customer who watches said cartoons, it's irrelevant if the animator listened to music while making the cartoon, or if the animator was getting a head massage, the audiovisual experience of watching that cartoon is identical, and that's the only thing that matters.

1.5: Information centers

Information centers are usually the starting point in Pangea if you want something. Due to the high alpha (high variety of products and services), Pangean cities can be difficult to navigate. In an information center, you express a wish (again, in a broad sense, like, if you need a plumber to fix the pipes in your house, that's considered a wish too), and then the staff of the information center will point you to a list of products or workers nearby that can fulfill that wish, and will explain the characteristics of that product or service. The staff at the information center also have low delta: some of the staff is specialized for entertainment, some for utilities (like a plumber or a doctor), others for physical products and so on, to reduce (or rather, distribute) the cognitive workload of having to know everything that is available in Pangea (which is basically endless!). Of course, like every service, information centers cost money, but it's affordable. Information centers are very broad in scope: if for example you want to see a movie with certain characteristics (e.g. a movie where there are at least 10 hugs in it), someone among the staff in the information center will give you the name of that movie, and where you can find it. Though, with search engines and the Internet, information centers have become less used lately, but still available for people who don't have the Internet (usually, people who don't have the Internet in Pangea do so for a personal choice, especially since the 2010's). Pangea makes it easy to still have what you want even if you decide not to have the Internet, it doesn't penalize you. Information centers were extremely important before the Internet but are still available. Information centers also sell maps, and regularly updated books (both physical and digital) that explain what's available in the city or town you're in (and pretty much everything you can think of is always available in every town or city). Interestingly, information centers also sell regularly updated books on what is available in each Gaian city and town (e.g. restaurants, hospitals, stores, plumbing services, historic buildings of interests etc.), and the instruction on how to fulfill every possible wish (among those that are possible to fulfill in Gaia) while on there, while however pointing out that Gaian culture is different from the Pangean culture and that many products and services are simply not available. For instance, if you want an illustrated guide on what's available to do in Milan, you can buy it in a Pangean information center. You can buy such book in any style: anime style, Renaissance style, 1950's political propaganda style, cubist style, super-hero comic book style, sci-fi style etc. any style, really, which may change images, fonts, layouts, colors, shadow effects etc.

1.6: Modularity

Modularity is a conception of things as a collection of interchangeable components rather than an indivisible whole. Modularity is very important for the Pangean system (though an individual won't necessarily have a modular view of things, it's totally up to them how to see things!), as it maximizes the alpha. Pretty much everything is considered modular by the Pangean system. For example, ideologies, including religions, are modular in Pangea. You can, for example, validly be a panentheistic occultist that worships Hedone, Sophia, Lucifer, Satan, Prometheus, Aphrodites and Jesus Christ in your pantheon, while fasting during the month of Ramadan but modifying the rule such as you can drink water during daytime, and celebrating Christmas on February 22nd. Eclecticism is extremely common in Pangea! To make another example of modularity, videogames are seen as a collection of assets, textures, music etc. and they are interchangeable. For example, you can change the music in a game, you can change characters (even swapping them for characters from a different franchise), health bars, icons, and so on. Modding and ROM/ISO Hacking is extremely common in Pangea. This leads to the next topic: copyright.

1.7: Copyright

Copyright in Pangea works differently than in Gaia (Earth). Since the primary goal of the Pangean system is to maximize the alpha (the variety of wishes fulfillable in one's free time), that means modularity (as explained before) is very important, and this includes derivative works. It's a logical necessity that the "Rule 34", that is, "if it exists, there is porn of it", applies to Pangea, for example. But Pangea expands that rule to "if it exists, there's [everything] of it". This means derivative works of everything are extremely common: food, music, ideologies (including religions), cartoons, books, and videogames, the latter results in a huge community of modding and ROM hacking, bigger than anywhere in Gaia! Because of this, the copyright in Pangea works differently from that of Gaia, it's a system that is designed to maximize the alpha. Of course, copyright exists in Pangea, because if it didn't, there would be no economic incentive to create high quality media. Creators must be economically compensated for each copy of their work. On the other hand, copyright in Gaia discourages derivatives. They still happen even in Gaia, but it's a fragile situation: they are often taken down or receive cease and desist letters from the copyright holders. In Pangea, there is a system called "modular copyright", which means that the copyright doesn't apply to the entire work, but to each component. The price of the work as a whole depends on the sum of prices of each component. I'll make an example with Super Mario 64. In Pangea, under the modular copyright, it's possible to copy and sell the entire game, but in that case, the game must be sold at the price of the original game, and all the money goes to the creators of the game. If you want to use the music of Super Mario 64 in your work, you can use it, but the amount of money corresponding to the value of that music will go to the creators. If you create a derivative of Super Mario 64, then you must sell it at a minimum price equal to the value of all components that you used, and that money will go to the creators of the game. If you add your own content to the derivative, you get to keep the money that corresponds to the value of your original work, whereas all the other money will go to the creators. Or, another example, if a movie lasts 120 minutes and costs the equivalent 10 dollars to see, then you can incorporate, for instance, a scene that lasts one minute and 12 seconds (1.2 minutes), but when you sell or otherwise share your work, 10 cents for each copy must go to the creators of the movie. This modular copyright allows a mass production of derivative works, which is necessary to maximize the alpha.

1.8: Official truth

Modularity also results in another consequence: for each statement and its opposite, there is a media that says that and that you can buy. Because of this, the Pangean government provides an "official truth" that one can consult. Without the official truth, Pangeans wouldn't be able to tell what's true and what's false, because the media says everything and its opposite, it's like a white noise of information. The Pangean government doesn't censor pretty much anything, it uses "saturation of information" as a method of controlling information, and introducing the necessity of having an "official truth" available for people to see. One of the few things that is illegal is doxxing, or real threats. But what if someone wants to doxx someone else? In Pangea, during your free time, you can have the sensorial experience of everything you want. That means, you can go to an information center and request a "doxxing live-action role-play", where you pay actors to simulate a doxxing activity: you pay to access a fake, paid intranet where you put a fake doxxing text, and then you and some paid actors go to a specific place designed to look like a normal house, and there lives a paid actor who pretends to live there and pretends to be a victim of doxxing. The LARP (live-action role-playing) can range, depending on your request, from cartoonish comedy to extreme realism, and your sensorial experience of doxxing someone is fulfilled. Pangea doesn't guarantee that the wish fulfillment is real, just that it feels real. This is because in Pangea, one's wish should ideally only be fulfilled for oneself (the wisher), and it must not affect other people (other than paid workers, but even then, Pangea tries to maximize even that, with weak causal isolation, while still fully fulfilling the customer's experience).

As for "free speech", Pangea makes a distinction not often found in Gaia: content and social interactions. In terms of content, there's almost absolute freedom of speech in Pangea: you can buy Mein Kampf, racist content (though, because Pangea is a "gradient multiethnic" rather than "sharp multiethnic", that is, boundaries between "different" ethnicities are more gradual rather than being sharply defined, colorist attitudes may be more common than racist ones, though because of how Pangean society is structured, the harm is minimized anyway), anti-Pangean content (even really harsh criticisms towards Pangea!), any type of content, really. In terms of content, the freedom of speech and listening is almost absolute. However, in terms of social relationships, rules are somewhat more rigid (though not excessively so, just strict enough to be functional): you can't insult a cashier at a supermarket, for example, or another customer (unless said customer consents). A cashier's gamma (their day to day job, the only thing that person is legally obligated to do in their lives) is just doing a certain task at a supermarket, not to be insulted. However, due to the maximization of the alpha, for each wish, there is at least one worker in the same city that fulfills that type of wish. So, if your wish is to insult someone, there are workers whose job is to be insulted. If you wish to insult a cashier specifically, there are places where you can insult people in specific conditions. Those places are more dynamic and follow the customer's request, as having a separate building for literally every scenario is a bloated solution. So, if you want to insult a cashier, you go to an information center, they tell you where the "roleplay insulting buildings are", you go there and you book a scenario where you insult a cashier. You pay, they tell you to wait, like, one day or a few days (depending on the queue of other customers), and then they prepare the scenario where they make the building look like a fake supermarket (the more realistic, the more expensive, of course, but even the cheap offerings are immersive enough). The worker who gets paid to be insulted gets dressed like a cashier, and then you go to that place and insult them. You cannot insult a normal, actual cashier, because again, that's outside of the cashier's gamma. Plus, there may be some matchers, but usually not, so don't count on it. If your wish is to say "offensive" things, don't worry, what is "offensive" is subjective, and it's pretty much guaranteed that whatever you believe in, there's some community you can pay to say those things, interact with people who agree with you (or with workers whose job is to agree with you) and have a sense of community. In Pangea, you have a right to an audience, even if that audience is some people you pay to listen to you, and whose gamma is specifically being an audience to customers' speeches. In addition, due to weak causal isolation, said audience doesn't even have to listen to you, because your experience is the same regardless of whether they actually listen to you or not, so they can put hidden earphones (as long as you don't see them) and listen to something else entirely while you speak. The only loophole around it is to specifically request that they ask you relevant questions, make comments, debate etc. to make it more engaging. In that case, they must listen, of course. However, that service is more expensive, so perhaps the "ideal" setting is having two or three people paid to engage, and the others (who are only there to give the sense of a larger audience) can listen to other stuff with their hidden earphones, and will not engage. This is usually immersive enough. So, free speech in terms of content = yes. Free speech in terms of social relationships = more restricted, but it's still the case that for each type of social interaction you want to have, there's at least one worker whose job is to let you have that interaction (or the experience of having that interaction).

Fact-checking and content warnings in Pangea are often more pedantic than the ones contained in Gaia, but the content itself is always fully available. There are also censored versions of media but of course they're optional, they're available for people who don't want to see certain scenes or types of content (e.g. if some people in a movie drink alcohol, you can buy a movie where those scenes are cut, but everything else stays the same). Both censored and non-censored versions of media exist, depending on the preferences of the customer, and one is fully free to choose which one to see. Unlike in Gaia, censorship in Pangea is an individual choice and only exists so that a customer who doesn't want to see a specific thing, will not see it, while letting everyone else see it. There are few exceptions, such as doxxing or the non-consensual spread of other private information, but other than that, Pangea doesn't censor opinions or fictional content. Media often has fact-checking, content warnings, "context" and other forms of notes provided by a centralized authority. One example is the versions of the Quran with illustrations in various styles. Iconography is haram in Islam, and yet the Quran with illustrations necessarily exists in Pangea (because every wish needs to have the potential to be fulfilled, so there's a great abundance and variety of products and services). However, on the back of the book, there's "context" that the Pangean government requires to add. That context says that iconography is forbidden in Islam, and that the book in question simply exists as a customized product. It also adds that for a more authentic, halal experience, one must buy a version of Quran without illustrations. This information may be useful to Muslims who live in Pangea, and also for people who want a more "authentic" experience. As for the content itself, the Pangean government even when it disagrees with an ideology (and it may even specifically say so, in case the ideology is mostly descriptive rather than normative), it still explains whether or not the book or media one is buying represents that ideology accurately. For example, the Quran and the Bible have a content warning for "extreme violence" and "promotion of illegal activities" (because of texts like "homosexual people must be put to death" inside the book, which is of course illegal in Pangea to actually perform in real life). on the back of the book. Another thing is the "disclaimers", for example in games like Need for Speed, where it says that street racing is illegal, and encourages people to drive carefully and wear seat belts. The same happens in Pangea, of course. For interactive digital media (e.g. videogames), such warnings are opt-out, they can be disabled in the settings if one does not want to see them, but they are necessarily displayed for the first time that one plays that game. From the second time on, it's up to the player to decide whether or not to see those warnings. On a Bible or a Quran, the government adds some warning such as "extreme violence", if there's a cartoon where a kid drives a car (and those exist in Pangea), the content warning says that children are not allowed to drive a car, and in cartoons with violence (even cartoonish violence), the warning says that inflicting violence on others non-consensually is illegal, in cartoons where people roll their eyes and jump off buildings because they heard a bad joke (and those cartoons also exist in Pangea), the warning says that jumping off a building is extremely likely to cause serious injuries or even death from the impact, and so on. Since a piece of media can have many of those scenes, in order to not annoy the customer, there is simply a button you can press in a remote at each scene, and it explains the "context" of that scene (e.g. whether it's illegal or dangerous). Warnings can be entirely turned off, of course, they just exist in order to provide information. An in-between solution that a customer can use is to have a small icon in a corner of the screen that turns red whenever a scene that "has to explained" occurs, so one can have additional information if they press the "context button". It can also be customized: for example, if you know that jumping off a building is dangerous but you may not know that something less obvious may be dangerous, you can customize when that icon turns red. Again, you can even remove that icon entirely, it's all up to you, the customer has the choice of their own sensorial experience. Warnings are extremely common and very pedantic in Pangea but their function is simply to inform the customer regarding the characteristics of the product, and whether something is illegal or dangerous, nothing more, it does not censor anything unless the customer specifically requests to not see a certain type of content. These types of warnings and "official truths" are necessary in Pangea, because in Pangea there is media that says literally everything, including, for example, "microwaving newborn babies is healthy for them, as the radiation stimulates their brains and makes them smarter". The government puts the "official truth" on that, saying, "This information is false. Microwaving any living being will result in their death.". Schools mitigate this epistemological chaos but they cannot be fully relied upon, due to the fact that students may forget what they have learned at school, as well as the fact that schools don't literally teach every single statement about everything in the world. So, microwave packages literally say on the back "Warning: do not microwave a baby or a pet, as it will kill them. Do not microwave metal items.". In order to not cause distrust in the population, the Pangean government indicates the "level of danger" of something. For instance, smoking cigarettes is nowhere nearly as dangerous as microwaving a baby, and so, if the Pangean government said, regarding cigarettes, that they kill you (which is the warning used in many countries in Gaia), and they said the same thing regarding microwaving a baby, then someone may think (regarding microwaving a baby), "well, it's probably not that bad", and may microwave a baby to dry them after a bath. In order to avoid this, the Pangean government has a "scale" of how dangerous something is, and cigarettes are much lower in the scale compared to microwaving a baby (which is categorized as "certain death", with very serious markers). However, the danger of cigarettes is not understated either. The information is simply accurate, so that everyone can make their own decisions in life and know the consequences of their choices. Gaian warnings on cigarettes exist supposedly to discourage people from smoking, so in Gaian stores, cigarettes have the "smoking kills you" warning. In Pangea, everyone has the choice to do whatever they want in their free time, as long as it only affects themselves, consensual matchers, or, in a much more limited manner, paid workers (but with minimized consequences on those workers due to weak causal isolation). However, in order to live "life as one wishes", one must know the consequences of one's own actions, so they are explained. Since everything in life carries at least some level of danger, the level of danger is simply reported. E.g. even driving a car is dangerous, as statistically, each year, some people die of car crashes. Instead of selecting an arbitrary level of danger above which something is banned (and in Gaia, that is not even consistent, as some things more dangerous than others are allowed and some things that are less dangerous are banned), Pangea simply provides information on how dangerous something is, and then the choice of whether or not to do that is up to the customer. Pangea also tries to mitigate risks whenever possible, or provides information on how to make things safer (while explaining to what degree things become safer), in order to provide the possibility of experiencing something while minimizing the associated risks, if possible.

1.9: Education

Education in Pangea has the sole purpose of creating a situation where the alpha is maximized. That is, a situation where there is the highest possible variety of products and services available within an accessible radius. In order to create such situation, the children and teenager must be trained for that. Since going to school is mandatory, it's considered work time. In Pangea, anything obligatory must be part of someone's gamma, and it must be confined to work time. Outside of one's gamma, nobody can be forced to do anything. Because going to school is work time, it is protected through low causal isolation, and asynchronicities are prevented. Furthermore, students get paid for passing tests: the better the grade, the higher the pay. Schools in Pangea have the primary purpose of training students to perform work-related tasks, so that when they'll start working, they will ideally already be trained to perform their gamma. Because of the huge variety of jobs, subjects are usually optional, but students are encouraged to be good as many jobs as possible. Students must become really good at at least three tasks: this is because being good at only one or two tasks is risky for the economy in case one needs a fallback. Schools in Pangea try to find what each student is best at, and push to maximize the student's potential at that thing. Pushing a student to maximize their potential at a task that they'll be mediocre at best is considered inefficient by the Pangean school system. Difficulty is not determined by age but by skills: the better you are at a subject, the more difficult the tests will become, and the more the student will get paid. Like in Gaia, there are subjects about maths, history, philosophy, literature, psychology, software development and the like, but there are also subjects that are not normally taught in Gaia: agriculture (both theory and practice of how to grow crops), and many others. Students don't have to wear a uniform, because in Pangea, any coercion is legally considered "work", so the student would have to get paid to wear the uniform, and that wouldn't make much sense economically! Furthermore, due to the low causal isolation, if the student successfully learns how to perform jobs as an adult (which is the entire reason why schools exist in Pangea), it's totally irrelevant what the student wears! They can wear any clothing they want, dye their hair blue, green, wear necklaces, nose rings, anything they want! The only important thing is that they learn how to perform at least three jobs, so that they will be useful in maximizing the alpha. Students are just coerced to go to school (to be physically present there, but they don't get paid for that, just like one does not get paid just to be physically present at their work building), study and do the tests. If they pass the tests, they get money. The higher the grade, the more money they'll get. Schools in Pangea also serve the purpose of psychologically profiling students since when they are children, to track their fears, interests, preferences, personality traits, what they're good at, and so on, so that if the economy needs to assign jobs due to a scarcity in a certain service, the jobs are assigned in a way that will cause the least possible negative psychological states among all configurations that maximize the alpha, so maximizing the alpha still takes the priority.

Fun fact: mandatory homework is illegal in Pangea, because it would be an asynchronicity. Here's why: treating a student differently at school because of something the student did or did not do in their free time ("did their homework" vs "did not do their homework") is a perfect example of an asynchronicity and therefore it's illegal. However, unlike in Gaian school where lesson is always a standard "teacher speaks, students listen" class, Pangean schools have a part of their time dedicated to homework and alone or group study. In that period of time, a student is required to do the equivalent of "homework", since that's not a part of free time, but "work time" (going to school is considered work time since it's compulsory), and during work time the concept of "freedom" does not apply. However, in free time (i.e. when the student returns home, or during school lunch) there must be absolutely no obligation to do "homework" (though if the student wants, e.g. to "improve", they can do that, of course). A teacher can encourage a student to do homework to "improve" or something like that, but it's the student who decides whether or not to take that advice: if the teacher treats the student any differently because the student did not do their homework during their free time, that's an asynchronicity and it's illegal!

Schools are generally from Monday to Friday, from 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. Between 11:30 A.M. and 12:30, there's the lunch break hour, in which students become customers and can perform various activities at school, such as (but not limited to):

• Lunch. You can order any food you want there. It doesn't have to be "healthy", either, though you do get a description of the nutritional values, allergens etc. but then the choice is up to the student.
• Video games, though you have to pay to play them, just like every other activity during lunch break, including the lunch food itself.
• Physical games e.g. sports, card games that can be played in less than one hour, and other stuff, I guess. There are both indoor and outdoor places for various sports, card games etc. if no student wants to play with a certain student, there are workers who are guaranteed to play with said student, in order to avoid excluding anyone.
• A place where you can either (list in increasing order of cost): read a book during the break, or rent the book for some time (so you can read it at home), or even buy the book permanently! Not just books, but also movies, videogames (as I said before), music (with headphones or headphones, otherwise the logistics of pleasing everyone would become rather difficult), and other forms of media!
• A sort of "rebel club" where people (workers) say stuff like "tired of school rules? come here, then!". In that place you can do a lot of stuff: swear, say offensive things, there's even a "rage room" where you can destroy stuff, insult any teacher that you don't like! Only behind their backs though, because the teachers' job is to teach, not to be insulted! It's not allowed to be disrespectful to teachers! Of course, teachers cannot mistreat students either. There must be reciprocal respect between students and teachers, at least when they're interacting with each other. Of course, in the rebel club, a student can insult a teacher if the student wants, but NEVER in front of the teacher! The school logic mimicks that of the broader Pangean society: students are like workers, they go to school under coercion (like in Gaia), and therefore that cannot be considered "free time", but "work time", and students get paid for their "work" (i.e. passing tests). During lunch break, students are like customers, and they can spend the money that they either received from the tests or got from their parents for the lunch food and leisure activities. They can also save it and use that money outside of school (e.g. to buy a videogame, or a phone, or some cool stuff, or go to a restaurant, whatever they want), of course! Also, in this "rebel club", the more "rebellious" you behave, the more compliments you will get from... well, the people who get paid to run the club, of course! The compliments are something along the lines that you're "cool" or something like that, to play on the rebel aesthetics. The worker themselves are dressed like a rebel, to increase the satisfaction of the student during lunch break. This may please teenagers and, perhaps more importantly for the Pangean government, it brings money!
• Rap battle rooms: during the lunch break, you can do rap battles with other people, either workers (whose job is specifically to do rap battles with students at schools), or matchers (other people in the school who also want to participate in a rap battle). If you can't find any matcher, workers are guaranteed, you pay one and you can do rap battles in a dedicated room. Rap battle rooms are not unique to lunch time! Even during the school hours, if a student prefers to perform spoken tests (not the written ones... spoken tests are those where the teacher asks you questions and you have to answer with your voice) but wants to rap instead of speaking normally, they can go to a rap battle room and put a rap music base, and either the teacher asks the question normally and the student replies rapping, or the student can pay a worker whose job is to do the "rap battle style tests". Surely, in the latter case, since the student had to pay the worker, the student gets paid less for the test, but at least the student had fun! As long as the answers to the questions are correct, it does not matter which aesthetics they are presented in, they are accepted as correct. The tests only have the purpose to see if the student can answer correctly, the aesthetics is irrelevant. So yeah, the rap battle rooms are useful both during work time (study time, basically) and during the lunch break alike!
• A student can pay during the lunch break to get back rubs, back scratches etc. from a worker if they want it. They can even get back scratches while playing videogames in the videogame room! The flexibility of Pangean free time also applies to lunch break, after all!
• A student can pay a worker to keep the student company. Sometimes, especially in high school, the age difference between the student and the worker may not be that high.
• In the schoolyard, a group of people (students, workers, or a mix of both) can do "camping". They can put a tent, go in there, roast marshmallows on a fire and tell strange stories (e.g. ghosts haunting secret rooms inside the school) and have fun!
• Other stuff (I'll have to think about it!)

Subjects and ratings in schools:

As said earlier, schools in Pangea are mostly oriented towards teaching students how to learn to perform various jobs (as many different jobs as possible). Since everyone is better at different things compared to other people (you shouldn't judge a fish on how good it is at flying, after all), the better one is at a certain subject, the more difficult those tests will get, and the higher that student will get paid. There's another benefit of being good at a subject: for instance, if a student eventually becomes good enough at medicine-related subjects, that student will get a license to be a doctor, and so on. Tests do not have the same difficulty for everyone, the difficulty depends on how good the student is at that thing, and students are valued and encouraged to get better at as many things as possible (though not everything, as that'd be unrealistic), while keeping in mind that everyone is better at certain things than others, that not everyone is good at the same things or have the same skills. It's of course not mandatory to get high grades at everything, but it's encouraged to be very good at as many things as possible. Some subjects are mandatory but most are optional, though you need to choose at least a certain number of optional subjects. Schools are basically training camps for "future workers", in many senses. The main goal of tests is to see what a specific student is best at, as that may become the job of that person. Not necessarily, of course. Sometimes people choose their jobs, sometimes not, depending on the market, but this aspect will be better explained in the economy section. Gaians also generally don't choose their jobs, the mechanisms for making sure unwanted jobs are performed by a sufficient amount of people are different and usually less direct than Pangea's, but they do exist regardless. Basically, the vast majority of jobs are taught at school (not simultaneously to everyone, since they're way too many, but it's more like... each student is taught to be really good at at least one thing, and good enough at at least three things... they're encouraged to become good at what they can become good at). When a worker does their job, it's often the case they had learned to perform that at school. For adult jobs (e.g. sex workers) that too is learned at school but usually at the last year, when the students are adults. Just like most subjects, only a minority of students learn it. Who do those students practice with... I have no idea tbh OuO

Because of weak causal isolation, the work of the students must be done with the lowest possible unwanted mental states. And what is the work of the students? The only purpose of schools in Pangea is to prepare the future workforce, primarily through two methods: teaching students how to perform various tasks which may then (as adults) become their future jobs, as well as by keeping track of what students are good at and what they enjoy doing (though there's no guarantee that will be their job, but it's certainly the priority among all other options). That means that Pangean schools are against romanticizing "struggle". In fact, struggle is exactly what they try to minimize. Among all possible scenarios which will lead to a functional workforce that will maximize the alpha (the variety of products and services), the scenario with the least possible negative states for the students (and future workers) should be prioritized. That means, the tests do not have to be boring white pages with black, standard fonts. They can have any aesthetics that the student prefers. If a student likes medieval fantasy, they can request the test to look like a medieval manuscript. A student can request a test with kawaii illustrations and fonts, and with cute hearts and kawaii kittens at the margins of every line if they want to. The important thing is simply that they pass the test in the best way the student can, regardless of the aesthetics of the test. Furthermore, a student can listen to music with earphones while doing a written test, as long as doing so does not cause distraction. If teachers prove that the music causes drops in performances, then the permission to listen to music while doing written tests is revoked. It's a bit difficult to prove, however, since test results tend to naturally oscillate, so in practice the permission is rarely revoked. Students can also eat snacks while doing tests, because why not. Tests can also be gamified: in Pangea there are RPG's where you attack enemies by correctly performing mathematical operations. Of course, those games must be pre-approved (because using a random game may contain incorrect answers or irrelevant questions), but the only thing that matters are the questions, and how well the student answers those questions: even if a game is super violent with blood and dark stuff, it's considered perfectly fine, as long as the questions themselves are appropriate and relevant and the student answers correctly. The aesthetics surrounding those questions is completely irrelevant. By being able to customize the aesthetics (though not the content) of the tests, students will have lower unwanted mental states compared to a situation where the aesthetics of the tests cannot be customized according to the student's preferences. Spoken tests (not the written ones, but the ones where the teacher asks you questions and you have to answer them to the teacher through voice), likewise, can be customized. If a student likes rap, they can put a rap music base and reply to the questions like as if the answers were the lyrics of a rap song. The aesthetics of the answer is completely irrelevant, only the content of the answer matters. If the answers are correct, even if they're rapped they're considered correct. If the answers are wrong, they can be presented in the most serious and academic aesthetics imaginable, they're still considered wrong. There are rooms in schools entirely dedicated for musical tests (it's not done in class, as some classmates may not want to hear musical tests): a student can even pay a specific worker (who has that specific job and is therefore good at rapping) to do "rap battles": the worker asks the student questions in rap style, and the student has to reply in rap style. Even if the student sucks at rapping it doesn't matter (unless the test itself is related to the student's rap skills, which is too a school subject in Pangea, just like music practice in general, since some students will become musicians as adults!), of course, what matters are the answers to the questions. It costs money so the student will gain less money compared to not paying that worker, but at least the student had fun! After all, what's the point of money if you never spend it? The student in that case is considered a "weak customer", that is, a worker who pays another worker. Another way to perform tests is the "LARP-based tests" e.g. a student can request that the teachers and the tests create a fictional narrative where if the student gets the test wrong, then the alien predators will invade Earth (which includes Pangea, it's not in a separate planet, just in a different layer) and kill everyone, whereas if the student gets the test correctly and passes, the "Gnosis" produced by the student's knowledge will create a psychic field that will prevent the aliens from entering Earth's atmosphere. If a student likes sci-fi, they may feel more motivated and have fun. The LARP-based tests can be about anything, of course, not just sci-fi. The student can request any narrative: an interesting consequence of weak causal isolation in Pangean schools is that it does not matter by which method the result is achieved, the only thing that matters is that it is achieved, period. This is because the most important thing in Pangea is that the customer has what they want in their free time, so, for example, it does not matter if a software developer looks at a software developer learning material when developing the software, the only important thing is that the software is developed, because the customer must have the software they requested. The only thing that is not allowed in Pangean schools during tests is copying from another student, because during work as an adult, that method wouldn't be accessible. However, every tool that can be used during work time will be considered as valid during a test. For example, calculators, dictionaries etc. are perfectly valid during tests, as those are physical items that one can bring at work as an adult. However, in practice, if a student needs to consult a software developer learning material to develop a software instead of knowing it already, that may slow the process down, and in that case the student is paid less and receives a lesser grade. However, if the student proves that despite needing a software developer manual to complete the test, the student can complete the task quickly, then it does not matter that the student consulted the manual. The reason why it does not matter is because the only thing that matters is that the software is developed, so that the customer has the software they requested. Time is also relevant: if the need to consult the manual slows down the software development, then it's considered bad, but with speed and quality being equal, it does not matter if the student needs to consult the manual or not: the grade and pay is the same. However, in practice, due to the how the tests are structured (the test requests users to perform actions that require reasoning skills that are not found directly in the manual but are only inferred through practice and reasoning), learning is required, even though calculators, dictionaries etc. are allowed. This is not an arbitrary decision, but it's done because even though students can indeed use calculators etc. during work time e.g. if they work as software developers, they will often be put in situations where the answer is not in the manual and can only be obtained through reasoning. Since schools must prepare students to become workers, it's essential that the student is capable of performing the task, with or without the tools. However, actual learning is often indirectly required to complete the tests/tasks, not because actual learning is valued for its own sake, but because it's often necessary for workers to perform the assigned task e.g. if a software developer only consults the manual, then the development will be extremely slow and limited to the examples shown in the manual, therefore, even though the manual is allowed, in order for the student to actually pass the test, they are indirectly required to have internalized the knowledge. However, if it was theoretically possible to perform the task without internalizing the knowledge, the Pangean education system would find that acceptable too. The Pangean school system only cares about creating a situation where workers (collectively) maximize the alpha, and among all methods that lead to such situation (maximized alpha), the method with the least possible unwanted mental states for the students is selected. The abstract concept of "learning" is merely a side effect, and has no inherent utility in and of itself. So, in short, basically in some cases, tools are banned during tests, and in some cases, tools are allowed. Tools are banned in the case a specific job requires to internalize the knowledge, whereas tools are allowed in the case a specific job can be completed using said tools. Internalizing the knowledge is only required when necessary for the job, and therefore, it's the means to the goal (that is, making students able to perform that job), and never the goal itself.

School subjects

When someone does their job in Pangea, it's often the case that they had learned how to perform that job at school. After all, that's the main purpose of school: to teach students how to perform jobs in such a way that when they'll be adults, they can perform a job such as the collective unwanted mental states of the workers are as low as possible. This is done by teaching people how to perform jobs, as well as keeping track of what each student is best at (rather than pushing the students to be good at every subject, which is what Gaian schools do), and what tasks each student likes and dislikes. Due to the sheer variety of subjects, it's not that all of them are taught simultaneously to everyone, but rather, tests have the function to keep track of what each student is good at. Ideally, every student should be good at at least three things. Of course, the more things a student is really good at, the best, since it allows for more flexibility when deciding the job (sometimes the student can decide the job, but when there's lack of workers in a particular field, choice becomes more rare, or limited to a few options... the alpha (the variety of services and products) has priority over anything else). The better a student is at a particular task, the more difficult the tests become, and the higher the student gets paid. They can then use that money during the lunch break (where a student is in their free time, and schools offer a high variety of entertainment during lunch break), or keep it to themselves and/or use that money elsewhere. Here are some of the school subjects (in no particular order, the numbers are just to keep track of how many subjects I list):

1: Learning how to read and write (when the student is in their first year): this is necessary... or else it would be a problem for the student to perform pretty much any job. The Pangean language does not use an alphabet, but a left-to-right alphasillabary where only the consonants are written as characters, and vowels are written on top of the consonant as diacritic marks. If a speech ends with a consonant, then that consonant is written without any diacritics, whereas if a speech starts with a vowel, then that vowel is written as a diacritic mark on top of the "mute consonant" (which can only appear at the start of a speech).
2: Mathematics. Up to a certain point it's a mandatory subject, but the most advanced classes are optional.
3: Geography and history: both of Pangea and of Gaia.
4: Philosophy and religion. Same thing
5: Literature. Both historical and contemporary.
6: Writing classes. These are for various purposes, as the variety of media (both fictional and non-fictional) is huge in Pangea. Students are taught about biases, rhetorics, thesis, antithesis, language registry etc. some of these classes consist in the student having to defend absurd opinions or opinions based on obviously false facts, and the more convincing the text is, the higher the grade. This is to teach rhetorics, especially important if one's job is to create texts that defend absurd opinions, which must exist in Pangea due to the alpha, so at least some students must learn how to do so. Furthermore, a student may be asked to answer the questions of test of an unrelated subject while writing like a pirate, or in very informal language, or in very formal language, or like a specific character from a media, or as someone who has a certain personality etc. this is done in order to increase the percentage of people who can produce such texts (which must exist in Pangea). Of course, not everyone will be good at it, but those who become very good at it may have such job.
7: Acting, psychology, storytelling, voice-acting, intonation etc. Very important in Pangea due to paid friendships, live-action roleplaying, public speeches etc. as with every subject, the goal of Pangean schools is to see who is good at it and who is bad at it, and to optimize those who have the potential to become good at it. It's not like in Gaian schools where everyone has to be good at everything. After all, a fish shouldn't be judged by its ability to fly.
8: Agriculture, planting crops etc. so students can learn how to plant crops, which is a very important job that at least some portion of the population must do, for obvious reasons.
9: Software development.
10: Animation (for cartoons).
11: Physics.
12: Biology and medicine.
13: Urbanistics and home design.
14: Electronics manufacturing.
15: Economy.
16: Nutrition.
17: Climatology (often part of geography classes).
18: Sewing (creathing clothings, plushies or other objects).
19: Cooking (both theory and practice... students cook food, and the better they are at cooking, the higher they get paid... students who are very good at cooking may work as chefs in a restaurant or fast food, for example).
20: Music (both theory and practice... students learn how to play instruments, and even singing... same reasoning as above, better skills = higher pay, and they may become musicians who fill the musical saturation of Pangea).
21: Art (various kinds).
22: Playing all sorts of games, including table-top games like Dungeons and Dragons as well as videogames, the more skilled = the more the student gets paid. The resulting job may be for example a professional player who plays against people who want to play videogames (or other games) with someone.
23: Tests regarding the services and products of one's own city, so that one can then work at an information center. In that case, one must also learn English well.
24: Foreign (Gaian) languages classes, so that if a student becomes good at those, they can translate Gaian media into the Pangean language.
25: If a student is bad at intellectual/practical subjects but is good at sports and has good stamina, that is also a subject, and the resulting work may be someone who keeps company to a customer by playing sports with them.
26: Massage courses.
27: Driving courses for various vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, boats, trains etc.), those who are the most skilled may work as a public transportation worker.
28: Plumbing classes (theory and practice lessons dedicated to teach students how to become plumbers, from the basics of learning how a house is built, the infrastructure of the pipes, heating systems, waste systems, safety standards, air conditioning systems, how to use tools, how to fix the pipes etc... tests are both theory and practice).
29: Food and nutrition. Learning the nutritive values, health, various diets, calories, sugars, proteins, fats etc. of as many foods as possible. A possible application of this is for those whose gamma will be "applying nutritional labels to food packages", for example, but of course it's not limited to that.
30: Media analysis. This is useful because some people's jobs in Pangea consist in applying "official truth" or "context" to media. In Pangea, the general rule is "if it's a job, then there must be a school subject teaching how to perform it!". Of course, not all subjects are mandatory, just a certain amount, and then a certain amount of optional subjects must be chosen, in order for the student to be good at more than one thing, facilitating economic flexibility. In Pangea, texts inciting violence (to groups, not to specific individuals!) is legal. Unlike in Gaia, where these texts are often banned, the Pangean government educates students to that content, and requires students to have at least some media literacy (which is a mandatory subject in its basic form, just like learning basic math as well as how to read and write). That means, students are given all sorts of media and the students must add "context" to it, e.g. whether or not the actions depicted in the media is legal. For instance, if a text says "people who live in a place where the average lows in the winter are above freezing deserve to be punched: their lives are worthless for experiencing such warm winters!" (and there is media that says that in Pangea, it's known as "thermoracism"), then the "context" a student must give is something like "non-consensual violence is illegal. In order to legally punch someone, you must find a consensual matcher". Students are then graded and given some amount of money for passing the test. The Pangean government prefers educating people from childhood instead of censoring media, for two reasons: the primary reason is that the more media is allowed, the higher the alpha (and therefore the better), and the secondary reason is that by educating students about media literacy, the problems regarding people being so gullible that merely reading "incitement to violence" leads to violent instincts in the person reading it is reduced, due to previous exposure and contexualization of that exact type of media. In most of Gaia, lack of media literacy at school makes people more susceptible to "incitement to violence" media once they at some point in their lives connect to the Internet and are exposed to such content. The countries that ban it give no opportunity to the students to learn that type of content and contextualize it properly. Pangean schools also teach students not only to apply the correct "context" to such media, but there are subjects dedicated to creating that type of content, including "incitement to violence". That, alongside psychology classes (very basic psychology is mandatory in Pangea, but only the very basics, then it's optional), lets students in Pangea see how that type of media works, as well as the psychology behind why some people may think or say that kind of stuff. By explicitly seeing and understanding the mechanisms behind that type of media, the harmful effects of that media are reduced. Doxxing remains illegal in Pangea, because it's a "potential cognito hazard", that is, a type of information that allows the reader to cause harm that wouldn't be possible if the reader didn't have that information, although it's not an "automatic cognito hazard", but the mere fact such information allows harm that wouldn't be possible otherwise makes it illegal. Other examples of "potential cognito hazards" are detailed step by step instructions on how to create bioweapons etc. that media is also illegal in Pangea, and if a customer requests it, a book with false but plausible sounding instructions is given instead, the reason is "for entertainment". True instructions for such things are illegal in Pangea. In Pangea, even books like The Bible or the Quran are given contexts, and students learn how to provide context. For example, in the Bible, in the Leviticus 20:13, there's written "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.". Students of the "media context classes" are then required to say "killing people is illegal in Pangea. Do not perform the action described in this text" in order to pass the test. Books like the Bible the Quran are sold alongside a mini-book that offers such context for all verses like that. Books like the Bible and the Quran have a warning on the cover (usually in the back) that says "extreme violence" and "promotion of illegal activities", and gives opportunity to learn where the official context can be found. However, the content of the book itself is normal, to avoid annoying the readers. The warning of "promotion of illegal activities" is likewise inserted in media like the Murdakist books (that say people who wear yellow t-shirts are to be put to death). Games like Grand Theft Auto just have the warning "depiction of illegal activities", not promotion, since it does not say you must do them in real life.
More coming soon!

1.10: Urbanistics

So, in free time one pays and gets what they want. However, in the vast majority of cases, they have to leave their house and physically move to where the product or service exists. So, the question is, how does urbanistics work in Pangea? The two main "types" of areas are: the Tranzit, and the thematic areas. The thematic areas are the content of the wish, whereas the Tranzit is the way to arrive to the wish. The Tranzit is the collection of all streets whose only purpose is to allow travel to a destination (usually either a building or a thematic area). As such, the Tranzit is not a destination, but merely a transit zone. The Tranzit has a minimalist aesthetics: no decorations, no statues, no symbolism (ideological or otherwise), nothing that attracts too much attention. It's easily walkable, drivable, as well as cyclable. Thematic areas are areas you can go to if you wish the urban design to look in a specific way. The distinction between Tranzit and thematic areas removes the conflict of desires that would be inevitable with a Gaian approach to urbanistics. For instance, in Gaia, someone may want a statue of the Bible's Ten Commandments in a specific area, someone else may want a statue of Baphometh, someone may want neither, and someone else may want both, because why not. In Pangea, in every city and town there is a huge number of thematic areas, for all tastes and preferences! There are plenty of "thematic areas": urban areas with varying aesthetics and characteristics e.g. cottagecore, cyberpunk-themed area, medieval-themed area, fantasy-themed area, sci-fi themed area, garbage/pollution area (for people who like that kind of place), nudist area etc. there are three rules for thematic areas: 1 = a "thematic area" cannot have services or products that are unavailable through the Tranzit, 2 = one should be able to reach all types of products and services without having to pass through a thematic area, 3 = every house must have at least one side facing the Tranzit: you should be allowed to leave your house and directly go to the Tranzit and do what you want to do. However, all the other sides of your house can face a thematic area. This is to prevent "soft-locking": when you're stuck in a thematic area you don't want to live in. As for the other sides of your house, you can place visual barriers, cover your windows with blindings etc. so you don't see the thematic area at all, it's just as if you didn't live there at all! For example, a side of your house can face Sharia Street, but that's not a problem, because first of all, houses are usually surrounded by walls in the garden, the exit doors usually don't directly face the street, and also, the rule is that at least one side of your house must face the Tranzit. So, you can exit from the side of your house that faces the Tranzit, you go to the Tranzit, you go to your destination, and you live your life like that, without any interference from the thematic area that the other sides of your house face. If a house could be faced by all sides by a thematic area, one could be "soft-locked" in that area, and that could be a problem. Of course, a house may as well surrounded by the Tranzit from all sides (though that generally doesn't occur, as it would be a waste of space: the Tranzit must occupy the least space as possible, it's just a transit route towards other places!), the rule is that at least one side faces the Tranzit (not necessarily directly, it can be beyond the wall of your outdoor garden). This protects Pangean citizens from visual contamination from thematic areas, and it avoid those thematic areas contaminating a citizen against their will. As for auditory contamination: it's illegal for example for a Mosque to perform the Adhan (the call to prayer) in a residential area, or for anyone to perform a music concert in a residential area without sound-proofing the music. One may dislike that genre of music, or music in general, and music shouldn't be heard from the Tranzit. However, a mosque that performs the Adhan can exist in a non-residential area: before allowing it, experts make sure that it cannot be heard from the Tranzit. Likewise for music concerts, they can be indoors and sound-proofed, as well as outdoors but far from a residential area (if it can be heard from a residential area, it can be heard from the Tranzit, as all houses face the Tranzit on at least one side). Well, actually, it can be heard from a part of the Tranzit, the one after a warning sign that says "beyond this point, sounds and music may be heard". Houses cannot be built there, that part of the Tranzit only exists to reach that specific mosque or outdoor concert. Mosques are of course allowed in the Tranzit, and even near residential areas, as long as they don't make any sound. Same thing of course goes for churches etc. the logic applies to everyone. Non-residential buildings (i.e. buildings that are not houses) are allowed to be faced by a thematic area from all sides if and only if that building does not contain products or services that are unavailable in a building that has at least one accessible side facing the Tranzit. A way to have a thematic area that is larger than just one street is to have a bunch of houses distributed as a perimeter (e.g. circle-shaped, square-shaped etc.), the area inside that perimeter can be entirely a thematic area, as long as outside of that perimeter there's the Tranzit. If experts verify that the sounds within that area cannot be heard outside of that area, then sounds (the Adhan, church bells, outdoor music etc.) are allowed. The Pangean government tries its best to soundproof the area (by using certain materials, or artificial elevation changes etc.), in order to give freedom to the thematic area (which is vastly preferable compared to a thematic area not having freedom). Of course, you must not be able to see the Tranzit from a thematic area either, as that'd disturb your vision. The Tranzit is basically the physical place that connects one wish to the other. Because teleportation is impossible, the Tranzit exists instead.

As said before, the Tranzit is considered a "transit zone", not a destination, but through the Tranzit you should be able to reach all other areas. Here are some ways (non-comprehensive list, it's just to illustrate the concept) to maximize the amount of aesthetic variety in a finite space:

• Streets often have zig-zag shapes (long straight lines are usually avoided). This is done to restrict one's field of vision, so that a higher variety of aesthetics can be packed within the same space compared to having long straight streets.
• Frequent use of visual barriers, like walls, trees and buildings to block the sight of what's beyond. Let's say that in the USA you're in a typical suburbia environment. At the end of the street there are a bunch of trees blocking the vision of what's beyond that. In Gaia, when you see something that blocks your vision, you can usually expect that beyond that barrier there's more of the same stuff. That is, if you go beyond those trees you'll still be in American suburbia. In Pangea, however, everything that blocks your vision (trees, walls, buildings, elevation changes etc.) almost certainly hides either: 1) a different aesthetics beyond that visual barrier, or 2) the Tranzit beyond that visual barrier. In Pangea, if you're in an "American suburbia zone" and you see a bunch of trees blocking your vision, you can be almost sure that beyond those trees, there's either the Tranzit or a part of the city that may look completely different from the place you're currently seeing those trees from. Beyond those trees, who knows, there may be a part of the city that looks like Ancient China. And in the part that looks like Ancient China, beyond a massive monastery there may be a hippie village located behind a hill that hides a medieval fantasy area beyond it, and so on. That makes "things that block your vision" very different conceptually in Pangea and in Gaia.
• Forced perspectives to make things look much larger than they actually are, so that even though the space itself is small (e.g. a part of a street), it looks huge to the eyes.
• Artificial elevation changes. For instance, you may be in a street, and look at the huge, distant horizon, but in reality, the street does not go on forever, it stops at a certain point and below that, there's a different part of the city, you just don't see it because it's below. Likewise, if you are below, you won't see the part of the city above, because not only it's at the top of a building, but it's hidden behind a small inclination and a visual barrier that prevents you from seeing it from below.
• Other techniques, like "infinity pools", coupled with artificial sand to make your eyes feel like you're at a beach, while in reality you're just outdoors at the top of a building, and the "sea" is just a pool that has a geometry designed specifically to look like the sea of a beach, blending into the horizon. It's like the infinity pool at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore except with artificial sand, and without the skyscrapers that ruin the visual immersion. In order to hide the actual horizon and blend it with the water of the pool, the outdoor part of that building is slightly inclined so that the edge of the pool has a somewhat higher elevation compared to the area in front of the door that connects the inside of the building to the outdoor rooftop where the pool is located. Of course, if you get too close to the edge of the pool you'll see that it's fake, but from most points it will look identical to an actual beach. Pangean urban architects are experts at using geometry in various ways to pack as many different aesthetics in a finite amount of space, and making sure that if you're in a certain thematic area, you don't see things that contradict that aesthetics.

Cities in Pangea are built with the intent of maximizing the possible variety of aesthetics in a finite space. That means, many people can be relatively close but not see each other, due to visual barriers, angles, and other techniques. A city of a million inhabitants may have tens of thousands or more different aesthetics within it. There are also vast underground transportation systems. As for indoor design, that's also designed to prevent people from seeing what they don't want to see. There are clearly labelled sections, and things are not super visible right when you enter a supermarket. Angles and geometry are designed for that reason, both indoors and outdoors. The principle of "you shouldn't see too much at once" applies to supermarkets (and other indoor buildings) as well, not just outdoors. Of course, if you do want to see "too much at once", both outdoors and indoors, there are specific angles you can go to achieve that sight, though you'd likely see a confused labyrinth that does not look very neat. Pangean cities are not meant to be seen all at once, just one specific part of the city at a time.

In Pangea, it's considered a terrible idea to build cities with large streets and short houses: people walking in such a city would see too much shared stuff, which would decrease the similarity to what they wish to see. It's more proper, on the other hand, to make sure that in each part of the city, one sees as few shared stuff as possible. If someone wants to see a cyberpunk-looking urbanistics, and another person wants to see a medieval looking urbanistics, and another one wants to see a cottagecore countryside, all of that should be available, even close to each other: the visual barriers, angles, carefully designed geometry and other optical illusions prevent one from seeing a different aesthetics compared to the chosen one, even in case of physical proximity. However, since this is a physical land and so there's no infinite space, one must use the available space in an intelligent way and optimize the urban geometry for perceived variety, even using optical illusions if needed.

In Pangea, the idea about urbanistics is that, if you go to a thematic area, then you only see what you want to see, both indoors and outdoors. It's considered a very bad urbanistics choice in Pangea to build linear streets with large roads and short houses, because with that design, people in the streets see too much at once, and it's not optimized for aesthetics diversity. In Pangea, generally speaking the field of view is restricted, you see only up to a certain distance, and then the zig-zag streets, angles and visual barriers prevent you from seeing what you're not supposed to see. However, there are some interesting details. That is the concept of "compatible sight line". For instance, let's say you are in Sharia street (a street where Sharia law is applied), and there are skyscrapers in that street, as it looks like a Saudi metropolis. From Sharia street, you may see a skyscraper in the distance, and that skyscraper may be part of the nudist section of the city. It doesn't matter that you're seeing a part of the nudist section from Sharia street, because what you're seeing is not naked people, but a skyscraper. The skyscraper itself is compatible with Sharia street, and as such it's allowed to be visible from Sharia street. So, areas are not always visually isolated from each other, but the question is "is this thing (building/street/decoration etc.) compatible with the aesthetics of place X?". If the answer is yes, then it's allowed to be visible from place X, but if the answer is no, urban design techniques (zig-zag streets, visual barriers, angles, and even using elevation changes (both natural and artificial)) are used to hide that sight from place X. For example, if you're in a medieval fantasy area, you should not see a skyscraper. Another technique is "transition buildings". Such building, for example, may look like a medieval castle from the front and a neon casino from the back. These techniques optimize the variety of aesthetics in a finite space. Simply having different areas but without the zig-zag streets, restricted fields of vision, angles, and visual isolation, would be wasteful. Sure, there can be many aesthetics within one city, but each area would need to be larger than needed. You could have, like, maybe 10 different aesthetics in one city? Cool start but that's not enough: Pangean cities have tens of thousands of aesthetics within them (though it also depends on how you count them, like... how different should two areas look in order for them to be considered a "different" aesthetics?). In Pangea, an aesthetics can simply be half of a street, but if you stand in that place, you only see that aesthetics, because everything else is blocked from your view through urbanistic design and various geometric techniques. If you're in a medieval fantasy area... it's very much possible that beyond a gated wall of the magical King's castle, there's a neon 1980's synthwave area, and that the same building that looks like a magical castle from the medieval fantasy area looks like a casino from the 1980's neon synthwave area. The gated wall may look like a medieval city wall from the medieval fantasy area, but it may look like a poster wall with neon lights depicting sexy women, dices and cocktails from the other side. The physical wall is the same but it's decorated differently on the back and the front. If you stand in either area, you don't see the other. You only see parts from another area if it's compatible with yours, visually speaking (e.g. you can see a nudist section's skyscraper from another part of the city if that part of the city is compatible with the concept of skyscrapers, even if it's not compatible with nudity).

1.11: Weak customers

An interesting Pangean concept is that of the weak customer. Because workers operate under weak causal isolation, that is, among all scenarios that successfully fulfill their gamma (their assigned task), workers have the right to fulfill those tasks with the least amount of negative mental states, then, for instance, a solitary worker who works as an animator for cartoons can pay a "professional back-scratcher" to come to the workplace and give the animator relaxing back scratches while the animator works, at the following two conditions: the task (in this case, animating the cartoon) is completed successfully with no decrease in speed or quality, and no coworker is put in a situation where they have to see it (workplaces in Pangea are designed with a geometry that facilitates visual isolation so that's not a problem in the first place). Of course, a worker who has to regularly interact with coworkers and/or customers cannot pay someone to scratch their back while working, but a solitary worker who sits behind a desk (e.g. animator, translator of media, writer etc.) absolutely can! During free time, one can have (the experience of) whatever they want, period. During work time, on the other hand, one can have the closest thing to "what they want" but only among all situations that successfully complete the assigned task, so the work must be done. However, as long as the work is done, everything else is irrelevant (as long as nobody else is contaminated), and more positive mental states that still lead to the work being done with the same quality and speed (or higher) are actively encouraged! One may wonder, then, is the animator who pays for the professional back-scratcher a customer? What are they? The answer is, they are a worker, but within the context of the transaction between them and the professional back-scratcher, such animator is considered a "weak customer", that is, a worker who receives a service from another worker. Furthermore, due to weak causal isolation, that professional back-scratcher can listen to music with headphones/earphones while scratching the animator's back, provided that the music is not so loud that it prevents hearing feedback from the animator. However, if the employer documents that getting back scratches leads to lower productivity e.g. the back scratches are so relaxing that the animator sometimes zones out and takes more time to animate the cartoons, then the permission to get back scratches while working is revoked for that specific worker.

1.12: The Post-Market

The post-market is any interaction that occurs outside of the standard "customer-worker" interaction. That is, the post-market is any interaction between matchers, that is, between customers who consensually interact in their free time. Here are some fun facts:

• Using the main currency (the one used in standard "customer-worker" transactions) is not necessary (but allowed) in the post-market. Matchers can also use alternative currencies, or even objects like packets of cigarettes. That's not very common, though, as that's kinda useless, unless it's some sort of exclusive club or exclusive economy that is not supposed to be "open". They can also use barter (trading something for something else) or a gift economy (doing something simply because both people enjoy that thing, without any further expectation). If two friends hang out together, that may be free, for example. It's just two friends hanging out, like in Gaia. Unlike in Communist countries, there is no prohibition on informally selling and buying items in one's free time. One can even become rich in the post-market. However, one is still legally obligated to perform their official job even if they can live purely through the post-market. The post-market happens purely during one's free time.
• There can be multiple alternative currencies in the post-market, as well as the official currency that is used in the standard market, and matchers are under no obligation to accept all alternative currencies, nor do they have any obligation of offering you any service. The matcher economy is purely voluntaryist, and discrimination is fully allowed for any reason, or even for no reason at all. Everything that happens in the post-market is considered "free time", and never "work time".
• Even if one can live entirely off their earnings in the post-market, one is still required to have a standard job and earn the main currency. Everything that happens in the post-market is considered "free time", and the Pangean government does not allow one to live solely during free time, unless one is disabled or if there are legitimate reasons.
• The post-market can potentially offer some services not available in the standard market, such as: real gladiator fights, real torture towards another person, human sacrifice etc. but there is no guarantee that those services will exist, it's entirely consensual. The post-market is purely voluntaryist.
• Even though the post-market exists, there is absolutely no guaranteed that you will be allowed in. It's perfectly possible that you will never be allowed in the post-market. In the post-market, nobody owes you anything. The post-market is not centralized, but exclusion can still happen by being unable to find anyone willing to economically engage with you. If someone discriminates against you in the post-market, you cannot sue them. This is why the Pangean government tries its best to make sure all products and services (other than the illegal ones such as real violence against a worker etc.) are available in the standard market, so that the post-market, while allowed, is mostly redundant.
• The post-market exists alongside the standard market. The standard market, working in it, and being able to have access to all its services, is mandatory by law, whereas the post-market is purely spontaneous, happens entirely during free time, and there are no guarantees, other than protections from fraud and other very minimal things e.g. if you buy sugar from the post-market and it's actually cocaine, the person who sold you that has done something illegal in Pangea: fraud. Interactions between matchers still have limits in Pangea: murder, fraud, rape, non-consensual violence, harassment, stalking etc. are illegal.
• Copyrighted content cannot be directly sold in the post-market, the way to sell it is through a worker intermediary. Let's say that you create a ROM hack of Super Mario 64 in your free time. Let's assume for the sake of the example that Nintendo has economic relationships with Pangea. Let's say that the price of Super Mario 64 is the equivalent of 10 dollars, and you used 90% of the content of Super Mario 64 in your ROM hack. That would be the equivalent of 9 dollars that must go to Nintendo per each copy of your ROM hack that you sell. Let's also say that you also created your own content (e.g. textures, music etc.) in that ROM hack, and so you decide to sell your game for 10 dollars (1 dollar goes to you and 9 dollars go to Nintendo). How does that work if you're not an official "ROM hack worker" and you made the game in your free time? You cannot sell it directly to another person, since as a requirement, the equivalent of 9 dollars (with the standard currency) must go to Nintendo. But there is a way to sell it! You go to a "derivative content marketplace", pay a worker and request the following service: "I want to publish this derivative game". The workers in that place check your content and calculate the percentage of money that goes to the original creators (Nintendo, in this case), and then they'll publish your game (or content in general). Then, your game is published. If someone wants to buy it, they'll buy your game, some of that money will go to the workers in that derivative content marketplace, some (depending on how much copyrighted content you used) goes to the original owners of that content, and some goes to you! Of course, there are plenty of workers whose job is to create derivative content (e.g. ROM hacks, fan-fictions etc.), but the value of the "copyrighted modules" that they used goes to the original creators anyway. The workers alone already create a huge variety of derivative content, pretty much everything you can think of is created by a worker, so people who create derivative content in their free time do so mainly for their own fun. In Pangea, you can also copy a game 100% and sell it. However, something quirky happens in that case. Since you used 100% of the modules and you produced nothing new, you must sell that copy at exactly the same price as the original, and all that money goes to who made the game, and you get nothing from it. So, technically speaking you can do it but it's pretty much useless.

1.13: Identifiers

People in Pangea choose their own names! At birth, they are given a permanent identifier that consists of a sequence of letters and numbers and it's unique to each person, but it's important that each person remembers their own, as that's their official identifier. It's not a problem at all if one knows other people's official identifiers: it's just a sequence of letters and numbers used to identify someone, it's the equivalent of knowing someone's name and surname in Gaia, in terms of consequences. You can do absolutely nothing with it, so it's not something that you must keep secret. You can share it, you can keep it to yourself, it's up to you, nothing bad happens either case. The equivalent of the "tax identification number" is of course private in Pangea and you shouldn't share it, but it's not the same thing as your "official identifier", they are two separate things. The equivalent of Gaian "names" (e.g. John, Jane) in Pangea are "informal identifiers", which are chosen by the person themself! Before someone can choose their own names, as babies/toddlers/etc. they are given a temporary informal identifier, that is: [Mother AND father's informal name]'s son/daughter. After a child is sufficiently developed to choose their own name, they do that. Of course, that can be temporary (though it can be kept if an adult still likes it), and can be changed as often as one wants, even as an adult! The way the government identifies you in the documents and other legal situations is by your official identifier: the sequence of letters and numbers. That means, people will call you by your informal identifier, that is, the name you have chosen for yourself!The official identifier removes the need for surnames, so you don't have a surname (unless you choose to have a fake one in your informal identifier for aesthetic reasons, or to differentiate yourself from homonyms, in case your chosen name is very common)! The government knows who your parents are because it records those informations at birth.

This distinction applies not only to people but also to products. Every product is officially identified as an extremely long sequence of characters. Those characters are chosen among a list of 256 different characters, so even a 32-character long sequence yields 256^32 possible combinations, that is, 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269,984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936 possible combinations. That is, 1.15*10^77 possible combinations. This makes sure that no matter how insanely specific a product is, it can be identified, and if for some strange reason, 32 characters are not enough, the sequence can be 64 characters long, which yields about 1.34*10^154 possible combinations, or even 128 characters long (1.79*10^308 possible combinations) and so on, there's no limit, actually. This lets customers choose for example the "informal name" of a mobile phone. If a customer wants a mobile phone to be called "Bork's Communication Engine", it will be called that way, and that name will be written on the device, as if that was the actual name of the brand. Inside the phone, the official identifier is written somewhere, to avoid fraud, so even though customers can call the same device with any name, the device can be identified. This is helpful for support, fraud detection etc.

2: Geography and climate

In this lore, Earth (the physical planet) has two (or potentially more than two, just undiscovered yet) "layers": Gaia (the "real" Earth, with Africa, the Americas, Europe, Asia, Oceania and Antarctica) and Kora, the layer where Pangea is located, which includes, other than Pangea, the continents of Centralia, Aurora, Borea and Sudhurland (which will be briefly explained eventually). There are various ways to switch between the two layers, and those ways will be explained eventually.

2.1: Pangea

Pangea is an island that is very narrow in terms of longitude and vary "tall" in terms of latitude, extending from 22.5 °N to 45 °N, with continents very close to Pangea's coasts, which prevent Pangea's climate from being uniformly oceanic. Pangea has a 5,000-5,200 meters (16,405-17,061 feet) tall dome-like peak in the middle that extends from north to south, and that creates a rain shadow in eastern Pangea, which is drier than the western part and usually has hotter summers. In terms of longitude, Pangea extends for about 500 km (311 miles). Its area is about 1,250,000 square kilometers (482,628 square miles), approximately the size of Angola or Chad, slightly larger than South Africa. Even though Pangea is technically an island, it has massive continents very close to it, about 50 km (31 miles) away, which makes a lot of its surface's climates behave as if Pangea was in the middle of a huge continent, right in the part where the summers are the hottest for the latitude: the longitudinal equivalent of western mountains in North America, like Kamloops, British Columbia (Canada) which has hot summers for its latitude, or central Asia like Kazakhstan or Xinjiang. Furthermore, the hot desert continent Sudhurland in the south-east, coupled with the massive dome in the middle of Pangea which creates a rain shadow as well as trapping the heat coming from Sudhurland, makes the summers in eastern Pangea extremely hot for the latitude. Alongside a huge variety of elevations, all of these circumstances contribute to create an extreme variety of climates across Pangea! Basically, almost every climate you can think of exists somewhere in Pangea (with some exceptions, like Yakutsk-like climates)! Summer temperatures at sea level are pretty uniform regardless of the latitude, average summer highs are around 32 °C (89.6 °F) in western Pangea and around 42 °C (107.6 °F) in eastern Pangea. Winter temperatures decrease going north in latitude (reaching an average high of 0 °C (32 °F) and an average low of -10 °C (14 °F) at sea level at 45 degrees north), and temperatures in general (both in winter and summer) decrease going up in elevation. Summer temperatures at sea level in north-eastern Pangea are abnormally hot due to a variety of geographic and orographic factors, and winters in Pangea at sea level are sometimes slightly colder than the latitude may suggest (though nowhere as cold as those of actual continental climates), due to a massive continent north-west of Centralia, only 50 km (31 miles) west from Pangea's western coast. At mid-high latitudes, above around 37 degrees north, Pangea is sandwiched between two massive continents (Centralia and Aurora), whereas in the south-east, there's Sudhurland which makes summers extremely hot in eastern Pangea, and the heat extends to high latitudes due to the massive central dome that traps the heat, as well as the lack of landmass at high latitudes east of Pangea (Aurora is mostly mid-latitudes). The only part of Pangea that is not close to any continent is the south-western part, below 37 degrees north, and the absence of any continent there makes the climate between around 31 °N to 37 °N in western Pangea Mediterranean. Centralia (the continent north-west of Pangea) stretches way north, and has a huge landmass on the polar region, whereas Aurora (the continent east of Pangea) does not have any landmass in the polar religion, but only at mid-latitudes. This means that west of Pangea, the air currents flow primarily from temperate and polar regions, and the summers are only somewhat hot (around 32 °C average highs at sea level), whereas in eastern Pangea, the air currents flow from temperature latitudes (Aurora) and tropical latitudes with hot desert climates (Sudhurland), making summers extremely hot even at high latitudes in eastern Pangea, with average summer highs consistenly around 42 °C at sea level. In eastern Pangea, the winters are as cold as in western Pangea, the only difference is that the summers are much hotter and that the climate is much drier. Pangea has a pretty uniform 2% longitudinal slope. Pangea's terrain is mostly flat, but there are some very steep mountains in the very northernmost area of the island, north of 44°59'N, and that's where people can ski.

The southernmost part (around 22.5-24 °N) has a tropical rainforest/monsoon climate in its western coast, a tropical highland climate on the highlands in the middle, while the eastern part, due to its proximity to Sudhurland (a large Australia-like continent with almost exclusively hot desert climates), has a hot desert climate with hot winters due to the tropical latitude: a climate phenomenon similar to that of Mecca, Saudi Arabia! Slightly more north, around 24-26°N, the climate is similar except that winters are slightly cooler compared to the summers. At very high altitudes, the climates becoming very cool year-round, similar to the highlands of Bolivia. Going further north, there is pretty much every climate possible: humid subtropical climates, oceanic climates, continental climates (very cold winters and very hot summers), subarctic climates, tundra, even ice-cap climates (all months with temperatures below freezing) at extremely high altitudes, above 5,000 meters (16,405 feet) in western Pangea, where the summers are cooler. In some parts of Pangea, it gets really cold in the winter, or really hot in the summer, or both simultaneously (in the north-eastern Pangean steppe at sea level, at around 44-45 °N, average summer highs are around 42 °C (107.6 °F, 315 K, (in Pangea you can freely select any temperature scale you want, there's no extreme standardization, and students at school are taught about the various temperature scales anyway)), whereas the average winter lows are around -10 °C (14 °F, 263K), a climate very similar to that of Turpan in the province of Xinjiang... this is an example of a climate that has very hot summers and very cold winters. Pangea has both hyper-continental climates with extreme variation (even though it's an island, there are massive continents right west and right east of Pangea) and climates with no variation or minimal variation (in the south). The absence of a continent right next the south-western part of Pangea makes the mid-latitudes of western Pangea (around 31 °N to 37 °N) a Mediterranean climate.

Demographics of Pangea:

Population: 1/10th of the Gaian population. Pangean population as of early 2026: around 800,000,000.
Ethnicity: gradient multiethnic. This is contrasted with the "sharp multiethnic" demographics of USA, Canada and Western Europe. The difference between the two is that gradient multiethnic means that ethnicity is not a number of distinct groups, but rather, a continuum with no sharp boundaries.
Religion: not officially counted. The existence of modular (i.e. eclectic) religions, the fact that people can change their minds over time and the lack of such information in the census makes such information impossible to obtain. Furthermore, the Pangean government does not collect such information, due to privacy. However, due to causal isolation, as well as how easy it is in Pangea to only interact with people who agree with you (regardless of your beliefs), then whatever the religious composition of Pangea is, it won't affect your individual life in your free time.
Urbanization rate: about 50% of the Pangean population lives in a city of 1,000,000 people or larger. Many cities have a population of about 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 people, and there are about 300/350 cities above 1,000,000 people in Pangea, distributed across a huge variety of climates. The remaining half of the population lives in places with less than 1,000,000 people. Even small towns in Pangea have a huge variety of products and services, but workers there often have a higher delta compared to workers in huge cities (since the same alpha must be "filled" using a lower number of workers), but not high enough to cause noticeable asynchronicities. In small towns in Pangea, the products and services available by default tend to be a bit more "vague" compared to those in larger cities, but if someone has a highly specific wish, they can still request that but it will take some more time to "prepare" it (e.g. send it to the town if it's a physical item, or prepare the setting/workers in case the wish is related to a live service), usually anything between a few days to a couple weeks, but it's available nonetheless. Furthermore, due to the relatively even distribution of settlements in the area, even small towns almost always have larger cities (100,000 people or more) not too far away from them, making transportation of goods easy. Pangea's entire goal is to satisfy all wishes (at least, the perception of it), so even small towns are prepared to satisfy very specific wishes. Pangea has a pretty high population density, about 640 inhabitants per square kilometer (about 1,658 inhabitants per square mile) as of early 2026. This population density is similar to that of Taiwan.

Fun fact: Pangea does not use DST. Noon (12:00) is actually noon.

Note, in the list below, when I say that a city is, for example, 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) away from another one, I mean that the closest distance between the two cities is that. The distance between the center of the two cities is of course larger. For example, the distance between Trivu and Sinshet in terms of the distance between the center of those two cities is exactly 15.35 kilometers (9.538 miles). However, since obviously a city occupies space, the closest distance between Trivu and Sinshet is around 10 kilometers (6.2 miles), and that is the data that will be written.

A list of some cities in Pangea (in no particular order), their latitude, population, elevation and climate (average highs and lows of January and July):

• Broga. 41°29'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,878 meters (6,161 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: -7.2/-17.2 °C (19.0/1.0 °F). July: 29.8/14.8 °C (85.6/58.6 °F). Borderline semi-arid/humid continental climate.
• Zümarə. 23°30N. 100,000 people. 5,150 meters (16,897 feet) above sea level, right on the central dome but on the eastern part of it. It's the highest permanent settlement in Pangea and on Earth, slightly higher than La Rinconada, Peru (the highest permanent settlement in the Gaia layer). January: -2.9/-12.9 °C (26.8/8.8 °F). July: 8.5/-1.5 °C (47.3/29.3 °F). Extremely high altitude tundra climate. At this altitude, the amount of oxygen available is about 50% of that at sea level. Travelling directly from sea level to Zümarə causes severe altitude sickness and can be fatal. The Pangean official health department suggests spending several days at intermediate altitudes first, in order to acclimatize. Even among residents, intense physical activity is extremely difficult at Zümarə: running or biking for long periods of time, or walking up long stairs, will cause severe breathlessness and fatigue, way quicker than it would at sea level. A portion of the population suffers from poor sleep due to the low oxygen levels. For the most part, though, the population is adapted at living at that altitude, though the conditions are borderline prohibitive. Unlike La Rinconada in Peru, Zümarə has good urban infrastructure and doesn't have pollution-related problems. Infrastructure-wise, Zümarə is the same as any other Pangean city: extreme variety of services and products, as well as tens of thousands of aesthetics in the thematic areas, ranging from natural environments (with minimal vegetation since it's a tundra... no trees, and minimal grass), to extremely urban shopping areas with neon signs everywhere, to medieval-looking places, cyberpunk areas, sci-fi looking areas, magical fantasy looking areas, post-apocalyptic aesthetic areas etc. just like everywhere else in Pangea, the only difference is the lack of trees and plants, and the low oxygen. In Zümarə there are also statues and wall paintings of cartoonish people gasping for air, mocking the residents and tourists. Some signs also say "can't breathe, uh?", with smirking emoticons and cartoonish characters gasping for air. Of course, those places are only for those who specifically want to see that kind of stuff, they're not in normal areas. Those signs, statues and paintings are tourist attractions, so that tourists take photos of those. In Zümarə there are also health services for tourists, which help treat altitude sickness. In Pangea, there is media promoting religions/ideologies that are obsessed about oxygen, either in favor of oxygen (suggesting people to live at sea level) or against oxygen (praising Zümarə for the low oxygen and saying it's the ideal place to live in). Those media have a very strong opinion about Zümarə, as one can imagine.
• Panom. 24°45'N. 11,000,000 people. This city is about 32 kilometers wide and 32 kilometers tall (32 kilometers = 19.9 miles), with a population density of about 10,000 inhabitants per square kilometer (25,900 inhabitants per square miles), so it has different altitudes within itself. It's located west of the central dome, at latitudes roughly between 400 meters (1,312 feet) in the western part of the city and 1,040 meters (3,412 feet) in the eastern part of the city. Panom has a tropical rainforest climate, with moderate to high precipitation year-round, high air humidity, and temperatures moderated by the elevation in the eastern part. Panom is the capital and largest city of Pangea. It's the only city in Pangea whose population surpasses 10 million. Climate in the western part (400 meters/1,312 feet above sea level): January: 26.2/18.2 °C (79.2/64.8 °F). July: 29.4/20.4 °C (84.9/68.7 °F). Climate in the central part (720 meters/2,362 feet above sea level): January: 24.1/16.1 °C (75.4/61.0 °F). July: 27.3/18.3 °C (81.1/64.9 °F). Climate in the eastern part (1,040 meters/3,412 feet above sea level): January: 22/14 °C (71.6/57.2 °F). July: 25.2/16.2 °C (77.4/61.2 °F). The easternmost part closely borders a subtropical highland climate but it's still a tropical rainforest climate.
• Zbez. 33°45'N. 1,200,000 people. Sea level, right on the western coast (Zbez is a coastal city). January: 16/8 °C (60.8/46.4 °F). July: 32/16 °C (89.6/60.8 °F). Mediterranean climate, just like most of western Pangea between 31 °N and 37°N: relatively rainy winters and extremely dry summers. This is the city where the Library of Zbez (an ancient 5th century B.C. library containing all knowledge of that era, and had never been censored) is located. Zbez is located exactly at the latitudinal center of Pangea.
• Xardøz. 33°45'N. 1,500 people. 154 meters (505 feet) below sea level, located in an arid depression, very close to the eastern coast. January: 17/7 °C (62.6/44.6 °F). July: 43/28 °C (109.4/82.4 °F). It's the lowest settlement in Pangea, as well as the settlement that recorded the highest temperature in Pangea: 55.0 °C (131 °F), which is almost as hot as the hottest temperature ever recorded in Gaia, which was 56.7 °C (134.1 °F) at Furnace Creek, California. Just like every small town in Pangea, despite it being a small town it has an incredible variety of products and services, as well as thematic areas.
• Toitsu. 36°34'N. 1,500,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 5/-2.5 °C (41/27.5 °F). July: 25/15 (77/59 °F). Borderline cool summer mediterranean/oceanic climate, summers are somewhat drier than winters. There is occasional snowfall during winter.
• Dozre. 36°34'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: 5/-3 °C (41/26.6 °F). July: 35/20 °C (95/68 °F). Semi-arid climate.
• Varuvor. 36°34'N. 200,000 people. Sea level, right at the eastern coast (coastal city). January: 12/3 °C (53.6/37.4 °F). July: 42/27 °C (107.6/80.6 °F). Hot desert climate.
• Büvre. 44°50'N. 1,200 people. 5,000 meters (16,405 feet) above sea level, on the eastern part of the central dome. January: -32.5/-45.0 °C (-26.5/-49.0 °F). July: 9.5/-0.5 °C (49.1/31.1 °F). This town has the coldest winters in Pangea, and is the place where the coldest temperature in Pangea has ever been recorded: -66.7 °C (-88.1 °F), which is almost as cold as the coldest temperature ever recorded in Russia or in the northern hemisphere of Gaia, which is -67.7 °C (-89.9 °F), recorded at Oymyakon, in Russia. Temperatures occasionally drop below -50 °C (-58 °F) during the winter. Just like all small towns in Pangea, Büvre has one street that looks like you're in a huge metropolis, kind of like the shopping streets of Tokyo with all the neon signs, but it's just one street. Outside of that, there are several more small aesthetics, the Tranzit, and that's all there is. It's a small town, after all, there's not much, but if you're in that one "metropolis" street, you do feel like you're in a huge metropolis, but it's just aesthetics. The variety of products and services is as high as anywhere else, though sometimes customers have to request certain products, but they're usually available within a few days, so there's no lacking if you live there.
• Schübawan. 22°30'N. 1,000,000 people. Sea level, right on the eastern coast of south-eastern Pangea, very close to Sudhurland, which is about 50 kilometers (31.1 miles) east from the south-eastern coast of Pangea. January: 32/18 °C (89.6/64.4 °F). July: 42/27 °C (107.6/80.6 °F). Hot-winter desert climate, similar to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Schübawan is a coastal city.
• Tsidan. 25°N. 30,000 people. 3,080 meters (10,105 feet) above sea level, on the eastern part of the central dome. January: 8.4/-1.6 °C (47.1/29.1 °F). July: 22/8 °C (71.6/46.4 °F). Tropical highland climate.
• Vendu. 30°56'N. 1,000,000 people. Coastal city (west coast). January: 20/10 °C (68/50 °F). July: 32/20 °C (89.6/68 °F). Borderline semi-arid/mediterranean climate (the climate is relatively dry year-round, summers are drier than winters, but still wetter than the summers of mediterranean summers more north).
• Quiva. 43°35'N. 1,100,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: -5/-15 °C (23/5 °F). July: 35/22 °C (95/71.6 °F). Continental desert climate. This climate is very similar to that of Hami (Kumul) in China.
• Abzid. 43°35'N. 1,000,000 people. 307 meters (1,007 feet) above sea level, east of Quiva, but not on the coast (Abzid is inland). January: 0/-10 °C (32/14 °F). July: 40/25 °C (104/77 °F). Extremely dry continental desert climate. This climate is almost identical to that of Turpan, China.
• Zöbom. 43°35'N. 1,050,000 people. 1,846 meters (6,056 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome, west of Quiva. January: -10/-20 °C (14/-4 °F). July: 30/17 °C (86/62.6 °F). Cold desert climate. This climate is almost identical to that of Semey, Kazakhstan, but Zöbom has slightly hotter summers.
• Bojon. 40°04'N. 1,000,000 people. 2,615 meters (8,580 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: -10/-20 °C (14/-4 °F). July: 25/15 °C (77/59 °F). Humid continental climate.
• Jugua: 22°30'N. 1,000,000 people. Sea level, right at the western coast. Precipitation is moderate year-round, but "winters" are slightly drier. January: 32/18 °C (89.6/64.4 °F). July: 32/23 °C (89.6/73.4 °F). Tropical monsoon climate with the "dry" season not particularly pronounced.
• Durte. 36°34'N. 1,000,000 people. Sea level, on the western coast. January: 12/2 °C (53.6/35.6 °F). July: 32/18 °C (89.6/64.4 °F). Mediterranean climate.
• Agdan. 44°50'N. 200,000 people. 2,615 meters (8,579 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: -17/-30 °C (1.4/-22 °F). July: 25/12 °C (77/53.6 °F). Among cities with 100,000 people or above in Pangea, this is the one with the coldest winters. Its climate is similar to that of Chita, Russia. The coldest temperature ever recorded in Agdan was -50.6 °C (-59.1 °F).
• Nokwa. 26°01'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome, north-east of the capital Panom. January: 20/10 °C (68/50 °F). July: 25/15 °C (77/59 °F). Tropical highland climate.
• Pomran. 38°19'N. 1,250,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 2.5/-5.0 °C (36.5/23.0 °F). July: 25/15 °C (77/59 °F). Humid continental climate.
• Lödhag. 23°54'N. 1,000,000 people. Right on the western coast (therefore at sea level). January: 30/18 °C (86/64.4 °F). July: 32/23 °C (89.6/73.4 °F). Tropical monsoon climate, with the dry season (the "winter") not particularly drier than the summer. Precipitation is moderate year-round.
• Sküar. 42°00'N. 50,000 people. 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: -2.2/-9.7 °C (28.0/14.5 °F). July: 25.5/15.5 °C (77.9/59.9 °F). Humid continental climate. This city is extremely snowy, averaging about 600 centimeters (236 inches) of snow annually. This is due to a combination of the lake-effect snow caused by the tiny body of water between Centralia and Pangea's western coast, as well as the orographic lift caused by being west of the central dome. All cities in north-western Pangea at relatively high elevations are extremely snowy.
• Zinda. 42°00'N. 100,000 people. Right on the western coast. January: 4.3/-2.7 °C (39.7/27.1 °F). July: 32/18 °C (89.6/64.4 °F). Humid subtropical climate, almost bordering on a humid continental climate.
• Tavun. 44°00'N. 25,000 people. 500 meters (1,640 feet) above sea level. January: -1.8/-8.8 °C (28.8/16.2 °F). July: 28.7/16.7 °C (83.7/62.1 °F). Humid continental climate. Just like everywhere else in north-western Pangea at relatively high elevations, this city is extremely snowy, and averages about 600 centimeters (236 inches) of snow per year.
• Jbaru. 43°35'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: -5/-15 °C (23/5 °F). July: 25/15 (77/59 °F). Humid continental climate. Jbaru has the characteristic of being the snowiest inhabited place in Pangea, averaging about 750 cm (295 inches) of snow a year, due to a combination of low winter temperatures, lake-effect snow from the tiny sliver of water between Centralia and Pangea, and the orographic lift caused by the massive central dome east of Jbaru.
• Parxal. 26°01'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level. East of the central dome. January: 20/10 °C (68/50 °F). July: 35/20 °C (91.4/68 °F). Semi-arid climate.
• Baiklan. 36°34'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,846 meters (6,056 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 0/-10 °C (32/14 °F). July: 20/10 °C (68/50 °F). Average snow per year: 200 cm (78.74 inches).
• Aldab. 36°34'N. 50,000 people. 1,846 meters (6,056 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: 0/-10 °C (32/14 °F). July: 30/15 °C (86/59 °F). Borderline semi-arid/humid continental climate.
• Irka. 29°32'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,846 meters (6,056 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 10/0 °C (50/32 °F). July: 20/10 °C (68/50 °F). Oceanic climate.
• Kambi. 38°30'N. 30,000 people. 1,400 meters (4,593 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 0.1/-7.4 °C (32.2/18.7 °F). July: 22.9/12.9 °C (73.2/55.2 °F).
• Pembet. 44°50'N. 1,100,000 people. 1,846 meters (6,057 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: -12/-25 °C (10.4/-13 °F). July: 30/15 °C (86/59 °F). Pembet has the characteristics of having the coldest winters of any Pangean city with more than a million inhabitants.
• Malek. 37°36'N. 7,500 people. 2,500 meters (8,202 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: -5.7/-15.7 °C (21.7/3.7 °F). July: 25.7/13.2 °C (78.3/55.8 °F).
• Vorde. 40°04'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 0/-10 °C (32/14 °F). July: 25/12 °C (77/53.6 °F). Snow totals (average): about 400 cm per year (157.5 inches).
• Zigun. 37°58'N. 300,000 people. 2,461 meters (8,075 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: -6/-16 °C (21.2/3.2 °F). July: 16/6 °C (60.8/42.8 °F).
• Ranj. 33°45'N. 500,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 9/-1 °C (48.2/30.2 °F). July: 25/13 °C (77/55.4 °F).
• Tusu. 37°16'N. 100,000 people. 1,250 meters (4,101 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 2.9/-4.6 °C (37.2/23.7 °F). July: 23.9/11.4 °C (75.0/55.2 °F).
• Runo. 38°40'N. 100,000 people. 750 meters (2,461 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 4.1/-3.4 °C (39.4/25.9 °F). July: 27.1/14.6 °C (80.8/58.3 °F).
• Korun. 28°07'N. 1,000,000 people. Right at sea level, on the western coast. January: 24/16 °C (75.2/60.8 °F). July: 32/23 °C (89.6/73.4 °F). Tropical monsoon climate.
• Vovir. 43°30'N. 500,000 people. Right at sea level, on the western coast. January: 2.1/-4.9 °C (35.8/23.2 °F). July: 32/18 °C (89.6/64.4 °F). Humid continental climate.
• Migab. 43°30'N. 250,000 people. 500 meters (1,640 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: -1.1/-8.6 °C (30.0/16.5 °F). July: 28.8/14.8 °C (83.8/58.6 °F). Humid continental climate. Average snow per year: 600 cm (236.2 inches).
• Nolba. 44°50'N. 1,000,000 people. Right on the western coast, at sea level. January: 0/-10 °C (32/14 °F). July: 32/18 °C (89.6/64.4 °F). Humid continental climate.
• Sisku. 41°29'N. 60,000 people. 846 meters (2,776 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: -0.5/-10.5 °C (31.1/13.1 °F). July: 26.5/13.5 °C (79.7/56.3 °F). Humid continental climate. Average snow per year: 350 cm (137.8 inches).
• Gadun. 36°34'N. 100,000 people. 307 meters (1,007 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. It's located just 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) east of Durte and is considered to be part of the "Greater Durte Area". Gadun, just like every city and town in Pangea, has an extreme variety of products and services, but if someone from Gadun for some reason really wants to go to Durte, then it's just 5 minutes of car drive in a paved highway in the middle of the woods. There's also a bike lane (just like in most Pangean roads), and it takes about 20 to 30 minutes to bike from Gadun to Durte. Climate of Gadun: January: 10/0 °C (50/32 °F). July: 30/17 °C (86/62.6 °F). Gadun has a mediterranean climate.
• Trivu. 44°50'N. 300,000 people. 1,384 meters (4,541 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: -9/-20 °C (15.8/-4 °F). July: 33/20 °C (91.4/68 °F). Humid continental/semi-arid climate.
• Tobok. 29°32'N. 1,000,000 people. 692 meters (2,270 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 17.5/7.5 °C (63.5/45.5 °F). July: 27.5/17.5 °C (81.5/63.5 °F). Humid subtropical climate.
• Sinde. 24°15'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 22.5/14.0 °C (72.5/57.2 °F). July: 25/17 °C (77/62.6 °F). Tropical rainforest climate, very closely bordering on a subtropical highland climate. The northernmost part of Sinde is located about 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) south-east of the south-eastern part of Panom, so it takes about 20 to 30 minutes (depending on the speed) by car through the highway to reach eastern Panom through Sinde.
• Selek. 36°34'N. 100,000 people. 1,231 meters (4,039 feet) above sea level, east of the central dome. January: 4/-5 °C (39.2/23 °F). July: 34/20 °C (93.2/68 °F). Semi-arid climate, closely bordering on a humid continental climate. Selek is located just 5 kilometers (3.107 miles) west of Dozre (of the westernmost part of Dozre, and about 10 kilometers (6.214 miles) west of central Dozre), and according to many metrics it's considered to be a part of Dozre, or at the very least certainly a part of the "Greater Dozre area". Dozre and Selek are connected through a paved highway, and it only takes a few minutes by car (not accounting for traffic or snow, which may increase the time) to travel between one city to the other. Furthermore, as pretty much elsewhere, there is public transportation, so someone from Selek can easily go shopping and do everything that there is to do in Dozre and viceversa. As with the vast majority of highways with such short length, there are also sidewalks across the two cities (Pangean cities and even extra-urban areas are extremely walkable), and it takes about one hour or slightly longer to walk from one city to the other, so if someone is not in a hurry, they can walk from Selek to Dozre. Of course, for safety reasons, the walkable part of the highway is walled off and fully separated from the area reserved to motor vehicles. The temperatures in this area can sometimes be a little extreme to just walk around for one hour in the highway sidewalks, though: in the summer, during the heatwaves, temperatures can rise above 40 °C (104 °F), and in the winter, during cold waves, the temperature at night can drop below -10 °C (14 °F) (though even during cold waves the temperature rarely drops below -5 °C (23 °F) during daytime). The temperatures on average are not that extreme, though, it's just during cold waves/heat waves that they reach those levels, most of the time the weather is mild enough to walk from Selek to Dozre, especially in spring and autumn.
• Singo. 29°32'N. 1,000,000 people. 2,615 meters (8,580 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 5/-3 °C (41/26.6 °C). July: 15/7 °C (59/44.6 °F). Subpolar oceanic climate, somewhat bordering on a tundra climate (Singo is not a tundra, though, there still are trees, and the climate is rainy, with somewhat frequent snow during the winter).
• Roduz. 33°02'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,385 meters (4,544 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 8/0 °C (46.4/32 °F). July: 23/13 °C (73.4/55.4 °F).
• Midva. 30°56'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,231 meters (4,039 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 12/4 °C (53.6/39.2 °F). July: 24/14 °C (75.2/57.2 °F).
• Kuröz. 28°07'N. 1,000,000 people. 1,538 meters (5,046 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 14/6 °C (57.2/42.8 °F). July: 22/14 °C (71.6/57.2 °F).
• Bwari. 33°45'N. 100,000 people. 308 meters (1,010 feet) above sea level, west of the central dome. Located just 5 (3.1 miles) kilometers east of Zbez, it's part of the "greater Zbez area". Bwari is connected to Zbez through a paved highway which has a fully separated, fully walkable pedestrian area. Bwari is just a few minutes by car away from Zbez, and about one hour of walking through that pedestrian area, so someone who lives in Bwari can very easily travel to Zbez, by foot, car, bike or public transportation. January: 14/5 °C (57.2/41 °F). July: 30/15 °C (86/59 °F). Bwari has a mediterranean climate.
• Venuna. 25°00'N. 200,000 people. 1,500 meters (4,921 meters) above sea level, west of the central dome. January: 18.7/10.7 °C (65.7/51.3 °F). July: 22.2/14.2 °C (72.0/57.6 °F). Subtropical highland climate. Venuna is located north-east of the capital Panom.
• Guzrem. 44°50'N. 1,000,000 people. Sea level, right on the eastern coast. January: 0/-10 °C (32/14 °F). July: 42/27 °C (107.6/80.6 °F). Continental desert climate.
• Sinshet. 44°50'N. 500,000 people. 1,077 meters (3,533 feet above sea level), east of the central dome, about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) east of Trivu. January: -7/-17 °C (19.4/1.4 °F). July: 35/20 °C (95/68 °F). Semi-arid climate.
• More coming soon!

Northern mountains of Pangea

In the northern mountains (above around 44°51'N or 44°55'N, depending on the location), there are no permanent settlements (due to the high steepness of the terrain, which makes building towns difficult), just ski resorts where people can go ski. The north-western mountains have cooler summers than the north-eastern mountains, and the north-western mountains are much snowier in the winter, due to the lake effect snow and orographic lift. Depending on the altitude, ski resorts can be extremely cold in the winter, so late February or early March may be a better time to ski in such locations compared to in the heart of the winter. Here are some ski resorts and their climates:

• Gube Ski Resort. 44°55'N. 500 meters (1,640 feet) above sea level, in the north-western mountains. January: -3.3/-13.3 °C (26.1/8.1 °F). July: 28.8/14.8 °C (83.4/58.6 °F). The Gube Ski Resort is a good one for beginners, the terrain is not super steep and the courses are relatively short. The average snowfall per year is about 600 cm here (236.2 inches).
• Durma Ski Resort. 44°55'N. 1,250 meters (4,101 feet) above sea level, in the north-western mountains. January: -8.1/-18.1 °C (17.4/-0.6 °F). July: 23.9/10.9 °C (75.0/51.6 °F). Late February and early March is a more pleasant time to ski in Durma Ski Resort, as the daytime temperatures are usually slightly below freezing and the average lows are around -12 °C (10.4 °F) during that period. Compared to the Gube Ski Resort, here the courses are steeper and longer, so it's for more advanced skiers.
• More coming soon!

The other continents in Kora have extremely low alphas, but for different reasons!

2.2: Sudhurland

Sudhurland is a huge continent with exclusively hot desert climates and is an extremely conservative society where many things are illegal. Sex is only allowed within marriage and only to generate offspring. Pornography is illegal in Sudhurland. These two prohibitions already eliminate sex work, pornography, and sexually explicit media in general. Then there are other laws in Sudhurland that minimize the alpha: iconography or media of everything is forbidden, so cartoons, movies, theater, music, videogames, sports etc. are considered "a waste of time", "something that brings nothing to our society" and are all illegal.

There are two types of settlements in Sudhurland: the large cities (over a million inhabitants) relatively close to Pangea, which have a slightly higher alpha due to cultural interactions with Pangea, as well as more inland settlements further east, which are even more conservative. The places with the slightly higher alpha are all located in the "Sothar" region, which has slighly more permissive laws than in other places. Outside of the Sothar region, electricity is illegal, and reading or writing anything is illegal and hated, all books are banned, for two reasons, "books may make people uncomfortable" (which is ironic, considering Sudhurland's culture), as well as "reading and writing ruins the memory. If it was allowed to write things down, the faculty of memory would cease to exist, because everyone would always be able to look things up on a book". In order to retain the faculty of memory in people's minds, Sudhurland's government bans all books in most regions, with the only exception of the "Sothar" region, Food is also tightly regulated, there is an incredible amount of dietary restrictions, as well as restrictions on the allowed recipes. It's illegal to cook something "foreign" (that is, anything not included in the very narrow list of Sudhurland's "allowed recipes"). The only difference between the Sothar region and the rest of Sudhurland is that electricity is allowed in the Sothar region (though it's strictly limited to the basic necessities, in order not to make people "weak"), some books are allowed (e.g. education books in schools, books where you can read the laws of Sudhurland, books that praise Sudhurland, but all forms of entertainment is banned), and there is an Intranet one can access for a maximum of 30 minutes a day, before the limit says "You have surfed enough today! Your time available refreshes tomorrow!". The Intranet contains no entertainment (which is illegal in all Sudhurland), and just has a few state-owned websites about education, law, and government propaganda. Outside of the Sothar region, Internet is prohibited, as well as electricity and books.

Architecture in Sudhurland has a very somber, medieval aesthetics. Medicine is only allowed if strictly necessary, you won't find painkillers for headaches in Sudhurland, because those are considered "encouragement to weakness" and are illegal. Those who have a headache must "deal with it and don't be a crybaby", according to Sudhurlander culture. Cars and vehicles (other than camels) are forbidden in Sudhurland. Walking is the main method of transport in Sudhurland. Camels are also an option but it's illegal to buy or sell them, you must go out in the desert and tame one yourself if you want to ride a camel. Another option to get a camel is to steal it from someone. If someone steals your camel, you are not allowed to call the police: the mentality is that you must protect your camel yourself, and if someone steals it from you, you deserved that. However, for the few things you can buy in Sudhurland (food and other basic necessities), stealing is not allowed, and thieves are punished with death. Every crime is punished with death in Sudhurland, even the minor ones. Electricity is illegal in most of Sudhurland, because it's considered "unnatural" and "makes people weak". Social relationships are highly regulated in Sudhurland: it's illegal to hug people (even your partner), or to be too cheerful, as that is considered "idiotic" and also illegal (punished with death). Religion is forbidden in Sudhurland (including in the Sothar region), as well as any ideology that contradicts or even just adds concepts not found in the Sudhurland's culture. All books are banned, for two reasons, "books may make people uncomfortable" (which is ironic, considering Sudhurland's culture), as well as "reading and writing ruins the memory. If it was allowed to write things down, the faculty of memory would cease to exist, because everyone would always be able to look things up on a book". In order to retain the faculty of memory in people's minds, Sudhurland's government bans all books. Food is also tightly regulated, there is an incredible amount of dietary restrictions, as well as restrictions on the allowed recipes. It's illegal to cook something "foreign" (that is, anything not included in the very narrow list of Sudhurland's "allowed recipes").

2.3: Centralia

Centralia is the continent located west of Pangea. Centralia is a libertarian society, with extreme capitalism and freedom of association. The reason why it has an extremely low alpha is not because it's illegal to do things, but because of indirect consequences, mostly related to freedom of association. Centralia has an extremely collectivist culture, people are controlled through shame, ostracism, and refusal of service (which is framed as the "freedom" of private properties to do business as they like, something that Centralians are very proud of). Centralian culture is extremely conformist, and is extremely focused on money and profit at all costs, prioritizing it over literally everything else, including basic morality. It's technically legal in Centralia to be homosexual, for example, but the culture is extremely hostile towards homosexual people. People in Centralia also never mind their business, and there is zero privacy, due to surveillance cameras being everywhere, including inside people's houses. The reason for the latter is because house builders have the "freedom" to install surveillance cameras inside people's houses, and if someone doesn't want those surveillance cameras, then the house builder won't build that house. After all, the house builder has the freedom to not do business with people who don't want surveillance cameras inside their house. Furthermore, if anyone is caught building a house without surveillance cameras, they are excluded from everywhere (including grocery stores), the electricity companies won't provide electricity to them anymore, and so on. That is the standard consequence of breaking the rules in Centralia. Due to freedom of association, the slightest infraction can lead to being fired from one's job and being prevented from even buying food at a grocery store, or from using electricity, as the owner of the grocery store or the electricity company has the "freedom to not do business with that person". Drugs are also technically legal in Centralia but nobody sells them, so they cannot be bought. Centralian culture considers it highly inappropriate to have sex outside of heterosexual marriage, and while gay marriage is legal and recognized in Centralia, there are groups of people who constantly spy gay marriages and publicly publish the list of people who are married to people of the same sex (because "freedom of speech"), leading to those people becoming pariah. Unlike in Sudhurland, the Internet exists in Centralia, but the only purpose of Centralian websites is to collect people's data and make people glued to the screens for as long as possible to maximize profit from the ads. Centralian websites are full of algorithms that force-feed you content, full of ads and tracking scripts, and none of that can be turned off, even if you pay a subscription service (which does nothing except giving you a "Premium" badge on your profile, which makes your content more likely to appear in the algorithmic feeds). In Centralia, if it's free, you're the product, and if you pay, you're still the product. Search either does not exist in Centralian websites, or if it exists, it's extremely low quality and most of the results are ads, irrelevant results, or things that you've already seen before (in the "recommended section" of the search results, which occupies a significant portion of the page). Search engines in Centralia actively ignore quotation marks, and it's often the case that even if the content technically exists on the Centralian Internet, searching for it returns no results whatsoever. This is framed in Centralia as "freedom", that is, freedom of the website owners to do what they want with their website. Technically speaking, independent websites are allowed to exist in Centralia, but search engines won't show them in the search results, all the main websites censor any mention of them, and DDOS protection does not support independent websites, because "freedom of association". Then, organized groups routinely perform DDOS attacks on independent websites, erasing the from existence. Centralian smartphones are extremely standardized, they are all touchscreen, black (rarely white), full of bloatware that you cannot uninstall, with an App Store that only has a few basic apps, and obviously you cannot install any app outside of the App Store, and you need to log-in in order to install apps. Videogames, movies and books are technically legal in Pangea but an extremely tiny amount is produced, because for the vast majority of media, someone somewhere in Centralia "gets offended" by the existence of that media and the boycotts are so strong that the publishing company gets out of business and all the people involved in the production of that media get ostracized. In Centralia, "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences". The result is that the extremely tiny amount of media that is produced is the most boring, generic thing possible, and even that is often very risky to publish! In Centralia, there are two main movies that people can watch, usually without consequences. A couple more movies exist but watching or possessing them leads to ostracism (exclusion from everywhere, including grocery stores or from having electricity). Those movies are very boring and generic. There's also one piece of music, an instrumental music track of minimalist trance genre. For the most part, content in Centralia is mostly advertiser propaganda, which speaks highly of capitalism. Entertainment is almost always "forbidden" (in the sense that is leads to ostracism), because "it distracts people from productivity!". Even during people's free time, people can receive requests from their boss at work, and working overtime is extremely common. Saying anything that the CEO's of the most powerful companies disagree with will lead to ostracism. Centralia calls itself "the land of freedom" and considers itself as "the most free country on Earth (which includes Kora and Gaia)". Centralia technically allows Pangean websites by law, but no ISP in Centralia will ever show Pangean websites (because doing so would lead to ostracism), making browsing Pangean websites in Centralia pretty much impossible, even if perfectly legal. This is framed in Centralia as "freedom of association" (for the ISP's), and "forcing the ISP's to show users Pangean websites, or any website, would be a grave violation of the economic freedom that our country grants to everyone! Coercion is just like rape, it's horrible!". The variety of food recipes in Centralia is very low, not because those recipes are illegal, but because they're "cringe", and therefore nobody sells them. Being "cringe" in Centralia has a very high likelihood of causing ostracism and boycotts towards you and the company where you work, which means you're a liability and you'll be fired from your job. However, you can cook your own recipes yourself in the privacy of your own home. Pornography is perfectly legal in Centralia but it's pretty much impossible to find, because Internet websites don't allow it because "the advertisers won't like this content". The Centralian Internet only consists of about 3-5 websites that look pretty much identical to each other, and the variety of the content you can find there is extremely low and very repetitive: there are about 3-5 pro-capitalist/anti-communist memes repeated over and over again, and the Centralian Internet is pretty much just that. The main websites don't allow anything else on their platforms (they're private companies, so they can do what they want), and all other websites are blocked by ISP's (it's the freedom of the ISP's to block any website they want, after all), and are shut down by DDOS attacks, since no cybersecurity company will provide protection to non-mainstream websites, due to the boycotts and ostracism. The only two countries on Earth that do not ban Pangean websites are Pangea (obviously) as well as Aurora. Centralia de-jure allows Pangean websites (saying "freedom of speech is an extremely important value for us, we would never prohibit access to information!"), but it is de-facto impossible to browse Pangean websites in Centralia.

2.4: Aurora

Aurora is the continent located east of Pangea, and it's yet another country with an extremely low alpha. The reason for the extremely low alpha is because of the lazy, superficially hedonistic culture of Aurora. In Aurora, doing most things is both legal and socially accepted, it's just that the population "sees no point" in doing so. People in Aurora do browse the Pangean Internet (if they feel like it), it's legal and not shameful at all, but "there's no point" for Aurorans to browse websites, read books, watch movies etc. it's considered a "waste of time". Aurorans tend to have a very short attention spans, and the government promotes a drug called "Aurora Magic" at the slightest discomfort any citizen faces. Of course, Aurorans produce pretty much no art or media, because, "what's the point, Pangea already produces them, we're the only country that allows Pangean media outside of Pangea, and those folks over there already produce every media imaginable, there's no reason for us to produce media on our own". Sex outside of marriage, gay sex etc. is allowed in Aurora and it's not even shameful at all, but good luck finding a partner! There are no sex work services, and trying to find sex in Aurora pretty much always leads to "nah, I'm not the in mood today (or ever)", or "I worked too hard today, let me sit on the couch, I need to rest". Sex, just like in Sudhurland and Centralia, is usually only done to generate offspring (have children), and even then, it's considered "physically exhausting" and "a chore". The favorite pasttimes of Aurorans are drinking beer, watch soccer matches on TV (but almost nobody does sport in Aurora, they just watch the matches), and scroll the Pangean websites that do have an algorithmic feed (in Pangea, the algorithmic feed is completely optional, you can totally remove it or customize it to be exactly how you want it, but Aurorans see "no point" in disabling the algorithim feed, "yeah, I'm not gonna search things myself, I want to relax in my free time, you know?"). The variety of recipes is very low in Aurora because most recipes are not sold in stores, and people are too lazy to cook, they say "I can buy any food I want at the store, what's the point of cooking?". If a recipe is not available at the store (that is, the vast majority of recipes... only very little variety is sold in Auroran stores), then the Auroran citizen is like "yeah, whatever, I'm not gonna cook anyway". However, an Auroran citizen is unlikely to even be able to imagine a recipe not sold at the store in the first place. Aurorans are not creative people at all! Another activity that Aurorans often do in their houses is to watch porn: the Pangean porn, since Aurora produces pretty much none of it. It's perfectly legal in Aurora to produce porn and it's not even considered shameful. Quite the opposite, porn is seen as "edgy" and "cool" to watch, the reason why Aurorans don't produce it is because they're lazy ("nah, having sex is too much work, and then editing those videos after it and publishing them? nah man, what's the point, Pangea has all the porn you can want for an entire lifetime!"). Aurora can access the Internet of Pangea, Gaia and Centralia (Gaia does not block Auroran IP's because... well, unlike Pangeans, Aurorans pose no threat, as they produce pretty much no content, just passively consume short videos, and so they don't produce light-weight front-ends for big tech websites, they don't create websites where drugs are openly sold, and they don't violate Gaian copyright). Sudhurland has no Internet at all, so it cannot be accessed, since it does not exist. Despite having access to so much content, Aurorans only watch short, extremely stimulating videos in a Tik-tok like algorithmic feed, and occasionally porn or soccer matches. Both Pangean and Gaian Internet have a lot of intellectually stimulating content, movies, books, videogames, music etc. but Aurorans ignore that completely, simply because they're not interested. A tiny minority of Aurorans are extremely curious, intellectual, have hobbies etc. but their desires can only be satisfied on the Internet, watching foreign content as the Auroran Internet is pretty much empty, since Aurorans only consume content and almost never produce it. The tiny minority of people who have hobbies and interests are therefore chronically online, as offline life in Aurora is incredibly empty, and having a discussion with Aurorans beyond small talk is pretty much impossible, as very few people have hobbies or interests of any kind. Aurora is a highly conformist society, not because it's illegal to be different (unlike in Sudhurland) nor because of shame or social pressure (unlike in Centralia), but because Aurorans are lazy and lack any form of creativity. If a Centralian thinks differently, they'll feel anxiety, they'll feel that they're "bad people" and immediately force themselves to "be normal". Aurorans, on the other hand, don't think differently, but simply because they lack creativity and won't even think that there are other ways to think and live. The thought just won't cross their mind in their first place. If you're different, Aurorans won't judge you negatively, they won't ostracize you, they'll just refuse to join you in your activities because to them, your hobbies are "lame", "boring", "too complicated to understand", and "a waste of time", and so they'll just go back sitting on their couch watching TV and scrolling on Pangean Tik-Tok like websites while drinking beer and eating snacks. So, Sudhurland, Centralia and Aurora are three societies with extremely low alpha, but for totally different reasons. Centralia is located north-west of Pangea, Aurora is located east of Pangea, and Sudhurland is located south-east of Pangea. The presence of these continents lead to the south-eastern part of Pangea to have really hot, desert-like summers, and to have the northern part of Pangea (say, above 40 degrees north of latitude) to have an extremely continental climate despite being an island. Centralia and Aurora are very close to the Pangean coasts, about 50 km (31 miles) away from the Pangean coasts, minimizing the effect of the ocean on the northern part of Pangea.

2.5: Borea

Borea doesn't have its own culture, it's just a circular shaped continent centered on the North Pole of Kora that exists entirely above the Arctic Circle (about 66.5 degrees north of latitude). It has an ice-cap climate, and the temperature never surpasses the melting point of ice (0 °C, 32 °F). Apart from that specific detail, the climate otherwise varies depending on the exact location of Borea. It is forbidden to permanently live in Borea, the only settlements are research stations where one can only live up to a year (defined as 366 days), then you have to return to your home location, and can only return to Borea after 366 days from the day you returned home. Even if you stay for 3 months (only for the summer), you still have to wait at least 366 days before returning. Even if you only stay one day. It is legal to be born in Borea, as long as the baby, once born, returns to their parents' home location before the baby's first birthday. It is illegal for someone born in Borea to spend their first birthday there (because even if the baby returns home the exact day they were born, they can only return the day after their first birthday at earliest). Each research station in Borea is owned by a certain country, so the ones owned by Pangea have an extremely high alpha even though they're not permanent settlements.

Borea is located about 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) north of the northern coast of Centralia. That means, unlike in Gaia, extremely cold currents are formed and have no bodies of water to block them. Those extremely cold currents in the winter then travel south-east towards Pangea, making Pangean winters very cold for the latitude. Aurora is very distant from Borea, which means the cold currents come exclusively from the north-west. In the east, there's just Aurora (mid latitudes) and Sudhurland (low latitudes), making summers in eastern Pangea extremely hot for their latitude.

3: History

Coming soon. The rule is: for each historical period, the alpha must be maximized as much as possible, while also trying to avoid synchronicities. Of course, in ancient times the approximation was less perfect, but I'll try to understand what was the closest approximation for each historical period, being as realistic as possible, for better immersion. It's also not entirely clear how Pangea and Gaia should had interacted historically and how to travel between one layer and the other, so it'll take some time.

4: List of things (non-comprehensive)

Because Pangea allows you to experience pretty much everything you can think of during free time, the list is necessarily non-comprehensive, as it'd be basically endless! Or maybe not literally endless, but it'd be huge to say the least, so I'll list random things, or things that I find interesting or quirky. As part of the alpha, even extreme wishes must be fulfilled. However, since sensorial experience (e.g. sight, hearing etc.) is considered a valid criterion for considering a wish to be fulfilled, then those wishes can be fulfilled by skilled actors through an act of the thing, even though it's not real and it's just acting. Things are not in any particular order, it's random, the numbers are there just to count how much stuff I've listed for each category.

4.1: Entertainment

Note: due to modularity, in Pangea some things don't have a clear boundary. In Gaia, some things have a clear boundary because there is what I call "Conceptual Void", large regions of unexplored ideas, which cause a distinction between, for example, "religion" and "political ideology". In Pangea, some distinctions are much more blurry and cannot be regularly achieved. All political ideologies have a version of themselves that are said to be dictated by one or more gods. Do they become religions just because divinity is included? All Gaian religions have a non-theistic version of it as well, where the ideas expressed are conceptualized as not coming from a deity, but from humans. Do those become standard political ideologies (e.g. in the case of Islam) or self-help material (e.g. in the case of Buddhism)? The distinction between religion, political ideology, philosophy and psychological tools is purely arbitrary and it's a quirk of Gaian culture, not Pangean culture (though in Pangea there definitely is media that attempts these kinds of distinctions, of course!). So, in this list, "entertainment" also includes places of worship/communities (for any religion/ideology), and things like psychotherapy.

1: Fake violent IRL shows, like those in the Colosseum, but even though they look real, they're totally fake, nobody is actually getting hurt.
2: Fetish centers (e.g. where one can smell a girl's feet or farts if they want to, or have sex with people in furry costumes), sex work of all kinds. Because of this, if in Pangea someone (of any gender) has stinky feet or stinky farts, that's not considered (at least by the system... people and media can have different opinions, of course) by the system to be a personal flaw, but rather, a talent that can be used to work as someone who lets customers smell said worker's feet or farts. Furthermore, the intensity of the stink of the worker's farts or feet (or armpit etc. depending on what their job is) is rated so that the customer can choose the intensity of the experience: different workers for different intensities. The workers who have to rate how stinky the farts or feet of the workers are, must not be anosmic: they must be able to smell and differentiate. However, to approximate weak causal isolation, the workers who can smell and differentiate between various intensity but at the same time are the least disgusted by stinky smells (or those who actively want to do this job, and those actually have the priority!) are select to be raters. The reason why the workers must not be anosmic in this case is because if they are anosmic (that is, if they lack a sense of smell), then they literally cannot do their job.
3: You can pay for friends (and partners), or you can pay to find Matchers for you (though the latter is not guaranteed to yield results). In case you pay for a professional friend, because the role ("gamma") must be as narrow as realistically possible, not all professional companions offer the same "services", so you need to express your wish more specifically and then you'll get a professional friend that can do what you want. E.g. some may be physically lazy and won't do sports with you, but they may chat or listen to you, and others vice-versa, they may play sports or games (e.g. videogames, tabletop games, cards etc.) with you but won't do "emotional support". Each professional friend, just like every worker, has their own role, since different people are good at different things. Every person's good qualities are valued and used in Pangea, whenever economically feasible. You can treat a professional friend badly, but only some of them, and only if they specifically offer "being treated badly" as part of their service, otherwise that's not allowed! It's likely there won't be many of those, so the price may be very high, and not very affordable. Those people that offer that service are selected for their emotional resilience, and the majority of professional friends don't offer "being treated badly" as a service!
4: Places where you can pay to set things on fire. They are known by some as "Pyromaniac fun centers".
5: Water parks, with slides and the like.
6: "Mud parks"(?): like water parks but with mud instead of water!
7: Strip clubs where you can play billiard, watch semi-naked women (or even totally naked... or men even), and drink alcoholic cocktails, or playing poker or do some other gambling activities. The building is full of neon lights, both outside and inside. It creates a certain, specific aesthetics, perhaps reminiscent of some Las Vegas buildings. Of course, there are places for every aesthetic thinkable!
8: Kart racing.
9: Places where you pay to destroy things (rage rooms)
10: You can pay someone to tell you a "bedtime story". Now, telling people "bedtime stories" is an incredibly specific job, so it's likely those workers do some other, somewhat related things as well, perhaps companionship-related, like chatting? But not too dissimilar from the basic concept of telling people bedtime stories, or telling people stories in general, or keeping people company before they fall asleep, like perhaps in a hotel? Like, an ASMR experience in hotels? Or not necessarily ASMR but company-related, something like that. The delta should be low but not too low, as there is a finite amount of workers.
11: "Magic" (illusionist) shows, like those of David Copperfield (and others) in Gaia. You can pay to watch them IRL, or on TV, or on the Internet, or on physical media (e.g. DVD or Blu-Ray).
12: Religious fetish centers, I'll make one example. You can pay to smell a girl's (or a man's, of course) feet or farts, and that is conceptualized as a ritual for a stink-related entity, like Mephitis (the Roman goddess of stench), and smelling girl's feet or farts is conceptualized as a ritual in favor of Mephitis, or as some otherwise sacred ritual. There are some religions in Pangea that say that, for example, smelling a girl's farts is a sign of spiritual enlightenment, and so there are buildings with that underlying concept, in case someone wants to smell a girl's farts with that underlying idea. Note that in Pangea, even in the case that literally nobody believes in an idea, there is still media promoting it, arguing against it etc. that's due to the alpha, which requires the workforce to create, among other things, media promoting and arguing against all possible ideas, even the most absurd ones, regardless of whether anyone actually believes that. This is done so that in the case that someone wants to read a specific idea, the information centers will not say to the customer "sorry, that thing does not exist". The market must always be prepared to satisfy every wish (or rather, the perception of it, but the perception of reading a book about a specific thing cannot be satisfied if the book does not exist).
13: You can pay for "weird interactions". Like, let's say you want to be with someone who "rides" a shopping cart while wearing Christmas lights around their body and is dressed like a fairy and says "yoo-hoo!!!" very euphorically while riding the shopping cart? Pangea must be able to satisfy these kinds of wishes. However, considering how specific this stuff may get, you'd need trillions of workers, so instead of doing one extremely specific thing, these "friends for weird interactions" are divided in "clusters", where the weird interactions are categorized in "types", and each of these workers does a type of weird interaction. This makes their delta relatively low, let's say, low enough that the variation cannot be exploited for asynchronous punishments, but high enough that only, say, perhaps only 50 or 100 of them are needed in a city of a million people.
14: You can pay to enter "fake backstory communities" where some people explain a fake backstory. It's not fraud, since when you pay for that, you are explained that it's fictional. Basically, you enter certain buildings, or outdoors (depending on the weather and your preferences), and there's a "fake backstory community" that explains their story. For example, the "Cat Girl Suffragettes". They are girls dressed as cat girls and they explain that they come from a cat girl reality where there was a tyrannical lion girl who ruled over the cat girls. The cat girls fought with determination and finally got a cat girl democracy and the ability for cat girls to vote, and that they're now touring Pangea to spread their message. Since these kinds of fake backstory communities can get insanely specific, the same reasoning about "clusters" applies here, and a customer can "book" a specific fake backstory in advance. It may take a few days up to perhaps a couple weeks in case of extreme demand, but it's available to be experienced: the customer's request won't be rejected.
15: Parks full of trampolines you can jump on.
16: Outdoor public discussion forums. All the customers are consensual, of course, since they are Matchers. There are workers who either play a role in the discussion (and in that case they may be experts at that topic), or act as moderators etc.
17: You can find a "community" for anything! Of course, there is a distinction in the roles of the workers (e.g. the staff of that community) and the other customers, who are Matchers, and are not required to chat or interact with you. If there are no Matchers for you in that community, the workers will interact with you if you want, so that you won't feel excluded.
18: Maid cafe with barely dressed (or even nude) girls/guys serving you food. These places are 18+. They can also be clothed if the customer wants to, and for each type of clothing, there is at least one worker that will wear it for you. For example, if you want to be served by a girl dressed with a penguin costume as her shirt, but completely naked otherwise, you can request that! There are some precautions taken in terms of hygyene, considering that the staff may be naked, but it's perfectly doable!
19: You can walk in a forest, jungle, or hike a mountain. This is something you don't have to pay for, of course, but it's in the list because, well, it's something you can do in Pangea!
20: "Clubs" where one's own biases can be fed... an offline echo chamber, basically. The club managers may or may not actually believe in those biases, but they do that for money... it's their job to provide that service to the customers! E.g. "white supremacy clubs", from "white" (of European descent, I suppose) people of Gaian origins who are basically grifters. Not just "white supremacy", of course, that's just one example... there are "clubs" for EVERY ideology, hobby and interest! And every aesthetic, as well! So, some may prefer hanging around people who have a certain aesthetics (e.g. 1980's rock aesthetics, or furry aesthetics) without having to commit to any idea or activity, just for the aesthetics, and there is a "club" for them. Of course, they must pay to join and stay. There may be other customers in those clubs, who are in no circumstance obligated to please other customers. In case no other customer wants to do activities with a certain customer, some of the workers of that club (whose job is to interact with people who want interaction) will do that, in order to assure every customer is always pleased and entertained, and never feel excluded.
21: You can buy and use drugs, any drug, even hard ones. If that's what you want to do in your free time, nobody will stop you...
22: Themed parks (e.g. dinosaur themed). You can listen to guides who offer explanations, or even just explore the place, look at the decorations and have fun.
23: "Relax centers" where one can go after working, to relax from the stress of one's job. As for what you can do in these places, it can vary!
24: You can go play Dungeon and Dragons (you pay for it, of course!), the other people in your party playing with you are either Matchers, or workers that get paid to play with customers... or a mix of both! The Dungeon Master is usually almost always a worker, I suppose!
25: Nudist beaches.
26: There are places where you can buy cannabis. The level of THC is indicated on the package, as well as the specific strain of cannabis. You can either just buy the cannabis or even enter a "cannabis community", with workers there acting cool, wearing cannabis shirts, making cannabis jokes etc. there are even rooms for smoking, separated from other rooms, since a customer may just want hang around the "cannabis community" simply for the aesthetics and the vibes and may not necessarily be interested in smoking cannabis themselves (that's a perfectly fine request in Pangea!).
27: You can pay to go to a place just for the aesthetics. For example, you can go to a casino and not gamble, but just enjoy the aesthetics, the neon lights etc. if the spontaneous experience is not stereotypical or satisfying enough, you can pay workers to do certain things. For example, you can pay workers to be dressed like mafia members and pretend to gamble at a neon casino, and you look at them or even talk with them. Some people may find certain aesthetics relaxing or comforting but may not necessarily want to participate in the activities associated with that aesthetics. Pangea allows one to experience exactly that!
28: Astronomic observatory where you can use an advanced telescope to see the Moon up close (and perhaps Saturn if the telescope is advanced enough?).
29: Competition of racist jokes/sentences. You pay to join the competition, against lots of other participants, and whoever says the most offensive thing wins a prize. The interesting thing is that Pangea is structured in a way such as it's very unlikely to "accidentally stumble upon" something you don't like. The urbanistics is designed specifically for this.
30: Games similar to Takeshi's Castle, which you can pay to participate in. Winners may get a prize. There are also TV shows about that. There are also much milder versions, of course, since one may like the concept of Takeshi's Castle but may find it a bit too extreme to participate in.
31: Practice Yoga.
32: You can pay to participate in an IRL game where you are a detective and have to find out a "criminal" (it's not real, just a game, an act... but it can be fun for some!).
33: You can pay to participate in trivia games IRL (like "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"), but it's not necessarily recorded for a TV show. That too is possible, of course, but if you want something more casual, there's that too, it's just for fun, it's not recorded and there is no monetary prize, just some cards that explain your score, and you can take them home if you want!
34: Videogame competitions/tournaments (due to modular copyright, some of the money will go the creators of the games played in the tournament)! You can play either against Matchers, or, if nobody is available, you can play against workers! The workers are rated according to their skills, so you can choose the level you prefer!
35: A fun indoor park similar in some ways to the Gold Saucer in Final Fantasy VII.
36: Disco with music in it, and there may be several activities to do there.
37: Cinema. There are also smaller rooms where you can request a specific movie, though it may take a while for the room to be available for you specifically, depending on how long the queue is, but it's available in any case!
38: Going to the beach. Likely free to just go to a beach, but the various activities available (and there are likely many! perhaps beach volley and others) are accessible through payment. Like, if you want to play beach volley and no Matcher is available, you can pay workers (whose specific gamma is to play beach volley with customers) to do that!
39: Live concerts of every type of music you can think of!
40: Karaoke.
41: Various festivals, for everything you can imagine. For instance, there are festivals dedicated to kitchen sinks, or to "Nazi Lolis" (it's supposed to be some edgy thing). You can even request a festival yourself, in case you want to participate in a specific festival, but due to the work required to create a festival, it's going to be relatively small, and even then, pretty expensive (though generally affordable as long as it's just an "once in a lifetime experience"). Festivals are in specific areas dedicated to festivals, definitely not in the Tranzit, as some people may not want to see whatever it's being represented.
42: You can easily ride a bike if you want, there are bike lanes everywhere in the Tranzit! There are also thematic areas specifically for bikes, everything there is bike-themed and there are some corners where people discuss biking and casually hang around each other (again, as usual, if no Matcher is available, there are workers for that).
43: Shopping!!! (supermarkets in Pangea have pretty much everything, lmao!)
44: Cosplay festivals
45: A place where you can interact with a (fictional) group of fairies in a forest! The forest is real, the "fairies" are just girls (or guys, too) in fairy costumes role-playing as fairies for the customers' entertainment. Some of the "fairies" may offer sexual services, but that entirely depends on their gamma. It's guaranteed that there are at least some girls dressed as fairies you can pay to have sex with in a forest (in a specific area to ensure privacy). In any case, it's also possible to pay someone to wear a fairy costume, go to a place in a forest, and offer the sexual service, or even just a romantic one. There are people whose job is "cosplay sex worker", and basically they're like sex workers but they also do cosplays and roleplays. A normal sex worker may not offer that specific service, I suppose. Every worker has their own role ("gamma"), it cannot be too broad, because if it is, the worker would be at serious risk of being a victim of asynchronicities.
46: Go see a physical original size recreation of Peach's castle of Super Mario 64. It's likely a very attractive tourist attraction. What is the relationship with Nintendo, or whether Nintendo would allow it, is undefined, but the answer is "probably not". However, Pangea does not respect Gaian laws, so the castle DOES exist in Pangea! The relationships that Pangea has with Nintendo and the rest of Gaia are speculative, but it's very likely that they won't be too good, because Pangea laws/ideology/culture violates several International Treaties of Gaia (e.g. the treaty that criminalizes drugs, and regarding copyright). So it's likely that economic relationships between Pangea and Gaia are rather difficult, but this aspect is a work in progress since it's so intricate and speculative. In any case, if Gaia doesn't allow its content on Pangea, then Pangea pirates and creates derivative content from Gaia, by definition. Despite Gaian laws, some companies secretly make business with Pangea and take money from derivative works.
47: A penis museum. A museum that displays mummified penises of various animals, including a mummified penis of a human from ancient Pangea, and in the museum there are texts on the walls with explanations about penises in general, or some "fun facts" about penises.
48: A videogame museum. A museum about videogames, their history, their characteristics, information about videogame development etc. in some of those museums, there may also be fan-made artwork of videogame characters, videogames you can play (for money, of course, and most of that money goes to the developers of that game) etc.
49: For those who like to vandalize buildings' walls with text or other stuff through spray paint: there are buildings made specifically for that. You pay, and for a set time you can have a certain portion of a wall that is "yours" to "decorate" with whatever text or symbol or drawing you want (even with all profanities and offensive stuff you want, if that's what you want). You pay for the service and, if you don't have a spray paint bottle with you, you are offered one (or more than one, with different colors), but that also costs additional money. As a result of the existence of this service, some buildings in Pangea, or rather, some parts of the city have "vandalized" walls, though this is intentional, for aesthetic purposes. Most parts of the city are devoid of such "decorated" walls, however. It's only some parts of the city that have those, to display a certain aesthetics for customers who may want to see graffitis.
50: Churches, mosques, synagogues, Buddhist temples, Satanic temples, Neo-Pagan plages of worship (of all kinds) etc. as well as modular buildings for worship of minority religions or even religions made up and believed by a single individual. In the modular places of worship, the "priest" or otherwise the people working in it will adapt on a customer by customer case. If an individual has made up their own religion, they can send the description of the religion and description of the request (of what the worker(s) should do) to the worker(s) of that modular place of worship, and the worker(s) will do as told by the customer. In exchange of money, of course.. all places of worship, including mosques, Christian churches etc. cost money to enter and participate, though cheap enough a minimum wage worker can afford to go there every day.
51: "Cuddle Therapy". You can pay for hugs, cuddles, back scratches etc. and of course, the experience can be customized! You can pay to get back scratches while you play videogames, and the person giving you back scratches cheers for you when you win, or encourages you to do your best at the videogame, while you're getting relaxing back scratches from them.
52: Asking someone (a professional companion) to watch a movie with you, in exchange of money. Note that each professional companion may have limits regarding the content of the movie you want to watch with them, due to weak causal isolation e.g. if the professional companion finds that movie offensive or otherwise uncomfortable, they won't offer that service. However, for every movie, there must be at least one worker you can pay to watch that movie with you! That is also why Pangean society subtly/indirectly discourages cultural uniformity. If everyone had the same sensibilities, then fulfilling the alpha would cause more discomfort to workers, even though even in that case the workforce would still be required to fill the alpha, as the alpha has priority over anything else in Pangea.
53: If you feel undecided about something, you can go to an expert of the subject of the thing that you're undecided about, and let them make the choice for you. For people who are terrified of making their own choices in life, this can feel convenient. You can of course choose the "type" of advice you get. You can get, say, "official truth advice", advice based on a centralized, official truth provided by the government, but you can also select "ideology advice", that is, let's say you're a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a minimalist, a Stoic etc. you can get advice based on those ideologies too, if that's what you ask for! Since in Pangea, ideologies are modular, the concept of "clusters" applies here, but it's still the case that each of those workers is specialized in one specific ideology. You can of course also send a description of your ideology to a worker, and you'll be redirected to the person who represents (not necessarily believes) an ideology that is the closest to yours, and then that workers will give you answers based on your own ideology, as you described it. Free time in Pangea is customizable, after all!
54: You can go to a luna park and go on a roller coaster etc.
55: A place sometimes (not always) known as "the Ephemeral Space". It's a place that is designed to look like a liminal space where people go for a brief period of time and then they leave. In that place there are various people (workers) who you can talk to. Each of them represents an archetype, ideology, personality or attitude, and each of them answers your questions in a different manner, similar to my philosophy pages where I list as many viewpoints as possible. When you finally get as many answers as possible, you may have different reactions: confusion ("which of these is the right answer? What should I do?") or liberation ("there's no right answer, after all, it depends on your perspective"), or some other feeling. The place of course can have varying aesthetics (everything can have varying aesthetics in Pangean), a sci-fi/fantasy/liminal aesthetics fits perfectly, but other aesthetics are also available, of course!
56: (Only in some cities) copies of Gaian attractions: the Eiffel Tower, Colosseum, Giza pyramids, Statue of Liberty, the Kremlin, Pisa tower, the Parthenon, statues of Kim Jong Un etc.
57: Individual vs group superiority clubs. Individual superiority clubs are clubs where you can go to, and the workers there are (either actually are, or pretend to be) "inferior" to you, in whatever value that you find worthy of being proud about e.g. if you feel proud of your guitar skills, you can pay to be in a club where people genuinely don't know how to play the guitar, or they don't play it well, and then in that club you can receive compliments for your guitar skills, as well as hearing other people play guitar (badly) and having them say "yeah... you play guitar much better than us! We suck and you're amazing!". The same thing goes for "immutable characteristics". Let's say that, idk, you're racist, or sexist (e.g. misogynistic or misandric), or whatever else... you can pay to join a club where they tell you that you're better than them due to having those characteristics. Then, in order to make you feel even more validated, they can tell you the achievements of the people who share the characteristic that you are "proud" of, e.g. if you're a man, then a bunch of women may tell you about men's historical developments, strength, contributions etc. if you're a woman, then a bunch of men may tell you that your gender commits way less crimes, that it's strong, independent, that it managed to overcome patriarchal systems (at least in Gaia... by definition, in Pangea it was never so severe (though Pangea had different problems, really dark too, just of a different kind)... for each historical period, the alpha was maximized as much as possible within the limits of the technology available... the same cannot be said at all about Gaia, neither in the past nor now), that it can manipulate men through beauty, that women commit much less violence, sexual abuse, wars, genocides etc. compared to men and that "we (men) are nothing compared to women... without a top-bottom patriarchal system, women would naturally be better than us. Not to mention, men do a lot more wicked things than women. Women are more pure and beautiful" etc.. Even if you identify as non-binary, a bunch of men and women (who will be framed as inferior to non-binary people) will find something positive to say about that, too! And this makes things clear... Pangean society as a whole has to be very creative in terms of thinking, arguments and ideologies. Necessarily so, because of the alpha. This will lead to worldviews, arguments and ideas that are pretty much unthinkable in Gaia! I somewhat suspect (though I'm not 100% sure) that this "acceleration" of brainstorming all possible ideas may make Pangea extremely culturally prosperous compared to countries where uniformity is valued. Group superiority clubs have a similar concept to individual superiority clubs, except that the workers are (or claim to be) part of your group, defined as a characteristic that you find worthy to be proud about, and the "inferior" people are those outside of the group, not present in the club. Of course, without saying anything directly to the outsiders, as that'd be non-consensual/harassment. As already said, freedom of speech/hearing is pretty much absolute in terms of content, even live content such as superiority clubs, but it's not as free (though not super rigid either) in customer-customer interactions, or in customer-worker interactions outside of the daily/weekly role of the worker e.g. you cannot insult or say offensive/controversial things to a cashier that is working at a supermarket. If you want to experience yourself insulting a cashier at a supermarket, you must pay for the "insulting a cashier role-playing", where an actor whose gamma is specifically to be insulted while pretending to do other jobs, pretends to be a cashier, and you can then insult that person, but you cannot insult an actual cashier, as their gamma does not include being insulted!
58: Casinos, and of course they can have any aesthetics! You can gamble at a place that looks like a medieval tavern, and you can play bingo there with cards that look like ancient manuscripts! There are also neon casinos (like in Las Vegas), sci-fi casinos, cyberpunk casinos etc.
59: You can pay to play some video game with other people: either workers whose daily job is to play those games with customers... or with other customers (Matchers), but only if they want to play with you... whereas with workers, it's guaranteed you'll have someone to play video games with. They are a specific type of professional companions!
60: In video game stores, you can try a game before you buy it, even though that costs some money. Obviously, most of that money goes to those who made that game... (even if it's a Gaian game, assuming there is business between Pangea and Gaia, which there may or may not be).
61: Museums of various kinds, normal and weird ones.
62: Sports of all kinds. You can play either with other customers (but only if they want to), or with workers whose daily job is to play with customers (so it's guaranteed you'll have someone to play with).
63: Welcome parties: e.g. if someone from another country (either from Kora or Gaia) goes to Pangea, either as a tourist or to live there permanently (and it's possible, just like it's possible for a clear web user to visit the dark web), they can request a welcome party for them. Also, if someone from Pangea moves to a different city (which happens often around 18-25 years of age, as one moves from their city of birth to a different city, often due for climate/geography/natural environment reasons), they can request a welcome party to the new city. Parties can be customized, the party will conform to the person's idea of "party", which may vary a lot. Of course, the "party workers" also have a low delta, so there are many of them (maybe around 10-100 for each city? idk for sure), each one with a different personality, different activities they can do (the range for each "party worker" is relatively small and divided into "categories", due to the low delta) etc. so depending on the idea one has regarding "parties", different party workers will provide the service. One can also call a worker that is not a party worker to participate to the party, e.g. if one has the idea of having sex (or even an orgy) as their idea of party, they can call sex workers to provide that service to the party. Note that not all "non-party workers" provide this type of service, but for each activity/desire that no party-worker can fulfill in that specific city (rare, because they try their best to maximize the alpha within the context of parties anyway), there is at least one non-party worker that offers party services in addition to their regular service. So, let's say that your wish is rather specific, and you want to play Dungeons and Dragons as your welcome party, and none among the "official" party workers knows how to play it: then you can call Dungeons and Dragons workers to play that with you in the party environment (with welcome party aesthetics)! Again, not all Dungeons and Dragons workers will offer that, but due to the alpha, there is at least one group of Dungeons and Dragons workers that offer, as a service, playing in a party environment (in addition to playing normally, of course). The alpha doesn't mean that everyone will do everything for you, just that for each wish, there is at least one person (or minimum relevant number of people, in some cases) whose job is to fulfill that type of wish.
64: Democracy roleplays: Pangea is not a democracy. If it was, then the alpha (or, more broadly, Pangean values) would be at serious risk. However, if one wants to vote or participate in a democracy, they can buy to participate in a democracy LARPing: Democracy roleplays are performed in places (indoor or outdoors, depending on the preferences) where people go and vote for one (or more) fictional political parties, based on one's preferences or some other strategy. Then, the votes are counted, and a political party or candidate (the candidate is a real person but the whole thing is a fiction, for entertainment) wins. Whoever gets more votes wins. Then, a celebratory party, inauguration, speech etc. is performed by the winner, in front of the paying crowd. If someone you didn't like won, no worries, there are sections (e.g. sub-groups, clubs etc.) in this democracy roleplay. For each candidate or political party that has lost, there are groups where to discuss "conspiracy theories" regarding why that political party or candidate lost. For instance, they may have intentionally or unintentionally miscounted the votes, or perhaps someone had spread false rumors about candidates that swayed people's opinions, and others refuse to declare that [winner] is their ruler, and do (fake) protests inside the hall or outdoor garden of the democracy roleplay. Every few years, a new election is made and people vote again, hoping to win (what do they win, since it's just a roleplay? some sense of identitarian satisfaction, I suppose... well, that's not much different from real life "democracies" anyway loool XD). There are also some shows in some TV channels that either celebrate or complain about the fake ruler being elected. For every fake election, there are TV shows who celebrate the election, TV shows that complain about the election, and TV shows that are neutral about it. There are shows for every aesthetics imaginable: sci-fi TV shows about the election, fantasy shows, V-Tuber shows about it etc. The people know the elections are fake, there's no deception about it, they just vote perhaps for a sense of identity, to signal their value etc. even though absolutely nothing changes and the real ruler is a different one from the ones that had been elected. Some media says it's the honest version of Gaian elections, whereas other media says Gaian elections are true and therefore better, and some others say that Gaian elections are true and therefore bad (because they may ruin the lives of people who had not voted for that particular thing that ruined their lives).
65: Shooting ranges: you can pay to go to somewhere where you shoot targets (I mean, mannequins, or signs with a red "X" on it... not humans lol and it's structured in a way to guarantee safety). You can even be given a score if you want, based on hit rate, speed, precision etc.
66: Locations that were made with the intent for tourists to take photos (note, not all cities have those, but in the entirety of Pangea there exists at least one location for any weird thing that a tourist may take a photo of): e.g. a supermarket that sells fake cocaine (which is actually just sugar, and it's even written in the back) and other fake drugs close to fruit, vegetables and other foods. They are placed close to each other with the specific purpose of tourists taking a photo of it and then saying "see? This is what Pangea is like!". Drugs are however perfectly legal in Pangea, the reason why they're fake in that specific context is because it's a little dangerous to put them so close to the fruit, and the placement is there just for tourists to take photos of it. However, if you buy that package of sugar, the cashier asks you if you want to replace it with actual cocaine. You show your ID proving you're 18+ and then the cashier replaces it with real cocaine, and you go home with actual cocaine.
67: The supermarket that sells fake cocaine (which can be replaced with actual cocaine once you show your ID) and other drugs next to fruit and other foods is merely one example! There are many others! For example: (Clearly intended for Gaian tourists to take photos of it) a store called "OnlyFans" that only sells fans (like, you know, those things that spin and create wind).
68: A nurse/doctor (you can choose the gender you want, or even non-binary/androgynous if you're into that) that masturbates you if you can't use your arms (or even if you can use them, tbh, that service is guaranteed as well). You call them, and they offer that service for you (at a cost, of course... but it's relatively affordable).
69: Schools where you can learn martial arts!
70: Crop growing competitions! You are rated and ranked based on how well you can grow crops!
71: Alien invasion LARPing. You and a group of either workers or Matchers (depending on the availability) play a game where the group makes certain decisions, and then based on those decisions, the outcome of the game changes. It's a fun strategy LARPing.
72: A fast food restaurant that looks exactly like the Krusty Krab from Spongebob, both outside and inside!
73: Spicy restaurants: restaurants that serve spicy food, with various levels of spiciness with super accurate scales. (e.g. Scoville Scale). It also serves non-spicy food, but each food is rated according to spicy scale. This can be done in regular restaurants as well, but spicy restaurants may also be themed with spicy food aesthetics, and mostly focus on spicy foods (though they also serve non-spicy foods). What differs from regular restaurants, however, is that there is also a part of the restaurant where workers are paid to let customers have a "social experience" where you can get compliments for standing spicy food well, where you can brag about being proud of tolerating spicy foods well, where there are "spicy food eating contests" etc.
74: Sour restaurants. Same as above but for sour foods instead.
75: Media banning LARPing. You don't like a piece of media (book, videogame, movie, song, etc.)? You can participate in a media banning LARPing (Live-Action Role-Playing) where you pay actors to play as politicians, psychologists and so on, and where you play a role in getting the media to be banned. You can select the difficulty, from ultra easy to ultra hard, the harder the difficulty, the more difficult it will be to convince the politicians to ban the media you dislike. There will be discussions, maybe even blackmailing politicians (within the LARPing, not real, of course), and if you do manage to get the piece of media to be banned, there will be a fictional newspaper article saying something like "[your name] has won: [media name] has finally been banned from our country! Here's what happened", and you can have, depending on your choice, compliments from people who thought the media was a scourge on the Pangean society, insults from people who liked that media, a mix of both, or undefined for more surprise and a sense of suspence. If you win at the ultra hard difficulty, you get a trophy: the LARPing is based on real political and psychological concepts and it has a good degree of realism, so getting a trophy for winning at the ultra hard difficulty means you have serious psychological manipulation and political skills, and you can be proud of that!
76: Ethnostate LARPing. You want to live in an ethnostate where everyone looks similar to you in terms of ethnicity? Try the Ethnostate LARPing. You can pay to access a... well, not an ethnostate, but a small portion of a street, decorated with your preferred ideological symbols (you can request specific ones in case they're non-standard or very niche). It's a small portion of a street, a thematic area, to be more precise, but it feels like a huge town or city due to geometry, angles, mirrors etc. that cause optical illusions and make the place feel way larger than it is. This can give the customer a satisfying sense of power.
77: A room full of mirrors on each wall, as well as on the floor and on the ceiling, creating a quirky optical effect of there being infinite clones of you in an infinite space.
78: A funhouse mirrors room, where the reflections are distorted.
79: Religious sex work: sex workers who'll have sex with customers in rooms inside temples to honor certain deities (usually pleasure-centered deities: hedonistic theism, but not necessarily, that can be modular as well!).
80: Yellow Submarine: you can pay to enter a yellow submarine (or a submarine of any color, for that matter) and just see what things look like underwater.
81: Fake public executions: for example, fake beheadings. A fake head with fake red blood is "beheaded", but in reality, the person's real head is inside their shirt. Pangea as a society has studied and perfectioned how to make almost any type of fake execution (or any fake extreme event in general) look pretty much undistinguishable from a real one. Pangea as a society is very good with illusionist tricks. One can pay to see a fake public execution for any reason: for example, if one is a Murdakist (i.e. believes wearing a yellow t-shirt must be punished with death), one can pay to see such an act, with a lengthy speech before the (fake) execution, explaining the reason, what the "criminal" has done and so on. Of course, none of it is real, even though it looks very realistic.
82: Paid restrictions (in general): some workers have, as their low-variability job, that of being observed by customers while following certain restrictions. Note that different prohibitions require different workers, in order to avoid the type of prohibitions being too different day after day. However, for each prohibition (excluding impossible stuff like breathing, of course!), there is at least one worker whose job is to be observed while respecting those prohibitions.
83: A sperm production competition: men masturbate and drop their sperm on a container above a weigher. The man who produces the most sperm (in one masturbation, not cumulatively) wins!
84: A place of worship where rituals are musical. It can even be a Christian church, a mosque etc. but they're likely modular, and not "regular" (Gaian-like) places of worship.
85: Good clown/bad clown judgement. You provide a description of something you did, or what you are like in general, and you are judged by two clowns: one clown (the good clown) expresses a positive opinion about you or what you did and explains why, whereas the other clown (the bad clown) expresses a negative opinion. Of course, you can also simply ask for the good clown only, or bad clown only, or "ideological clown", who judges you not based on whether you asked for a positive or negative opinion, but based on a specific ideology that you requested.
86: A roleplay of a secret club that "has discovered a secret part of Pangea": there are (in the roleplay, not for real) secret, inaccessible portions of Pangea, called "Dark Pangea". Those places cannot be accessed from information centers, nor from the Internet, and their existence is secret. It is said that Dark Pangea covers the vast majority of Pangea, and that "Surface Pangea", the part of Pangea accessible from information centers, is but a tiny minority of what there is. Some media speculates that "Dark Pangea" is simply the post-market (consensual interactions between customers, and it's true you can't access most of it from information centers, as often it's just friends hanging out, or people spending time with their family etc. that stuff is obviously not indexed by information centers, as it's not a public service). However, the secrecy surrounding the post-market has lead to media discussing possible theories about what the post-market may actually contain and how deep the "rabbit hole" may go. Of course, there's also some media dismissing the concept of "Dark Pangea" as "crazy nonsense". The official truth is oddly silent about this.
87: Foreign occupation media and/or LARP. In Pangea, there is media that (falsely, for entertainment, clearly labelled as fictional) claim that Pangea has been occupied by a foreign country (for every Gaian country, there is some media that claims that): two versions in terms of timeline: "it has just been occupied", or "it has been occupied for a long time". Not only there's media claiming that, but you can also pay actors whose job is to engage in "foreign occupation LARP". They party, bring foods, flags and music from that country, and claim that they are very happy that Pangea has been "liberated" or "civilized" (you can request the details yourself) by that country. If you want, the Pangean flag can be burned and replaced by the flag of the foreign country that has supposedly occupied Pangea. The LARP costs more than the media since you have to pay live actors, but it's still relatively affordable, especially considering it's likely not something you'd want to do every day (you may get bored, I guess?). But the media is much cheaper and you can watch it as much as you like. Books, TV shows, recordings etc. Of course, all the media is clearly labelled as "fictional, for entertainment". Of course, media and LARP also exists for the idea that Pangea has occupied another country. The attitudes can also change: one can also participate in fake protests for either (for the foreign country occupying Pangea or viceversa), it doesn't have to be something that is celebrated!
88: Fake protests for a fictional problem. You can make up a problem that doesn't exist (anything you want) and participate in a fake protest. You can also pay actors who participate in that protest with you, the price can vary, but it can be relatively cheap since there's a designated "fake protest zone" and some actors may spend some minutes with you and then go to another fake protest, and then some actors that were participating in a fake protest go participate in yours and so on. They can rotate between different fake protests (assuming there is more than one at a specific time, which may be true in a very large city), reducing the cost somewhat. However, you pay not only for the live actors but also for the signs and for renting part of the area for the duration of the fake protest. It's relatively expensive overall but it can be done once in a while, for fun.
89: A group of (full, non-modular) Muslims that say that Pangea is the land of Satan, and that living in Pangea is like living in the Jahiliyyah (the age of ignorance before Islam). These Muslims produce anti-Pangean, pro-Islamic content (books, podcasts, live events etc.) and give each other advice about halal products, media, "how to live a true Islamic life in Pangea" (which is extremely easy in terms of social infrastructure, the difficult part is the self-restraint, but this group also teaches methods of self-restraint, based on psychology), what things to avoid etc. it's basically a mini-information center (but with an Islamic bias) + social relationships (as usual, either with workers or with matchers... with matchers if they want, with workers the social relationships are guaranteed). This can give a very strong sense of community and purpose (arguably even more than living in an actual Islamic country, since in Pangea there's also that "self-restraint" component which adds a sense of challenge and purpose that is lacking in a place where haram things are banned... even more compared to Western Europe or the USA since in Pangea there are even more "temptations"... opinions about this aspect among Muslims in Pangea are fragmented... like everything else). This type of group is called "self-restraint lifestyle community", and there are even Christian groups like this, as well as for any other self-restriction (e.g. anti-alcohol, anti-drug, anti-masturbation, anti-physical activity (pro-laziness groups that discourage physical activity), etc.). It both helps people who want to quit a certain behavior as well as people who never had problems with that behavior but want a community that does not do [selected thing], with the underlying (and often correct) idea that surrounding yourself with certain people helps you be similar to them. There are such groups for pretty much everything you can think of, regardless of health reasons e.g. the pro-laziness groups discourage any form of physical activity, and the most extreme ones say that even walking should be reduced as much as possible, and they even explain how to achieve "physical activity minimization", e.g. live in one room, sit on your bed or couch all day, and have as many things as possible within the reach of your hands, since you should try to minimize walking or getting up. In case of dangerous/unhealthy things, there's an "official context" explaining in detail the effects of doing that thing, with empirical evidence, but you are free to do it. In Pangea, you are free to drink rat poison if you want, but you are always informed about the consequences of what you want to do. Warnings are rather pedantic in Pangea: for example, on microwave oven packages there's written to not microwave your baby or your pet, as it will kill them. And to not put metal items in the microwave. Anyway, there are many religions/ideologies (both Gaia-based and Pangea-based) that say that Pangea is an evil land and that one must restrain oneself and not engage with the vast majority of what Pangea offers. Even religions based on ancient Pangean deities have groups like those, especially the more ascetic religions. Of course, Pangea has always tried to approximate "everyone has what they want in free time", it's not just a modern thing, it's actually a very ancient value that has always been there in Pangea. There are also groups of Muslims, Christians, ascetics etc. that praise Pangea for allowing them to fully live their lives according to their lifestyle (at least during their free time). Opinions in Pangea are never a monolith!
90: Mood-based communities. You can pay to participate in communities (often interacting with workers) with a specific mood that you selected. E.g. if you believe that emotions are contagious, or if you believe that it's best to spend time with people whose mood matches yours, you can pay to participate in a "community" with people (often workers) who are extremely cheerful, lively, light-hearted and enthusiastic. They may even suggest music, books, cartoons, videogames etc. with the specific vibe you want! If you want a "dark, conspiracy, occult, 'we-know-the-hidden-truth'" kind of mood, you can enter that, too. If you want "emo-style depression" moods, you can go there too!
91: Proselytism areas (religious, ideological, group etc.): public proselytism in the Tranzit is usually illegal in Pangea, especially if excessively noticeable. That's considered a public nuisance, more specifically a "causal contamination". The consequences of doing so are usually not severe but it's illegal nonetheless. If one wants to proselytize, however, they can pay to access a "proselytism area". It's an area (can be indoor or outdoor, depending on preferences) where proselytism is allowed. One can enter as: "advertiser" (performs the proselytism but does not seek a new worldview or group), "seeker" (seeks a new worldview or group but does not proselytize), or "switch" (does both). One can proselytize to the following: "seekers", "switches", as well as some of the workers, namely those whose specific job is to listen to your ideas in an engaging manner (though they won't convert or join your group, as that's an overreach of work roles). Those workers are especially useful if no seeker or matcher wants to listen to you, as you'll have guaranteed listening from workers. The workers can even give you constructive advice on your worldview if you ask for that! Or even advice to improve your rhetoric and persuasion skills! Seekers and switches are matchers. One can not proselytize to "advertisers", however! One is given a sticker to wear on their clothing to signal what role one entered as, to avoid confusion. One can proselytize their own religion, worldview (the distinction between religious vs non-religious worldviews is often very blurry in Pangea), or even a formal worldview-based group one can join. Regarding the proselytism listener workers: they can then convert in their free time if they want to, of course, but a proselytizer customers is not allowed to know the religious views of the worker: if the customer does know, they are expected to refrain themselves from talking to that specific worker. Moreover, after the customer finishes talking to the worker, and if for some reason the customer finds out that worker converted or didn't convert in their free time, the customer is expected to refrain themselves from talking to that worker again. The reason is the following: if a customer knows about the religious view of the proselytism listening worker, the treatment from the customer will be different: that is literally the (Pangean) textbook definition of asynchronicity: when something you do or believe in your free time introduces variation in your work time.
92: Birthday celebration. You can pay for "party workers" to celebrate your birthday in the way you ask. You can also request a birthday "present", though of course you have to pay for the "present"... basically what you get is the experience of receiving a birthday present from someone. Of course, since workers have a low variation, that means depending on what you ask, you must ask different people to provide that experience.
93: Temples dedicated to Hedone where you can pay to have sex with the priestess, and that's considered a religious ritual that blesses you with "hedonic energy" (basically a fancy way to say "pleasure"). There are also "softer" versions of these temples (or even the same temple but in a different room) where you can get massages, aromatherapy, eat delicious foods, and look at nice paintings, all to honor the sacredness of pleasure.
94: "Electricity-free zones". There are very small portions of cities that are completely without electricity. Those portions are for people who, for whatever reason, refuse to use electricity, or even for people who are simply curious. It's likely the case that nobody lives in those houses or buildings, they're just there for aesthetics and populated temporarily by workers who are simply there to give the illusion that the place is inhabited. Some of those workers have the specific gamma of explaining to the customers (who requested such explanation) a fake backstory of how their "community" lives without electricity. The backstory is fake and the customer knows, but it's entertaining. People in Pangea are used to the idea that many things are simply live-action roleplays, but it's fun anyways (even though some media says they're fun, some media says it's a useless, sad and horrible thing, while some others are neutral or more mixed or balanced in their view).
95: Very small (e.g. a small street or less) outdoor places intentionaly full of garbage and pollution, either for people who enjoy such vibes, or for people (either Pangeans or Gaians) to film that place and make anti-Pangean propaganda and being able to say "Pangea is actually a very dirty place! Look!"
96: Liminal spaces. You can pay to enter a place that looks like an abandoned store. It's not actually an abandoned store, it's just a place built specifically to look like a liminal space. You pay a ticket and you can visit it for a selected amount of time.
97: Thematic areas with experimental architecture. These places look weird on purpose, for artistic reasons, and are conceptually similar to the Hundertwasserhaus in Wien, Austria.
98: Regarding human sacrifices in Pangea: being sacrificed is not a legal job in Pangea. There can be no requirement to have some quota of workers who get sacrificed. However, human sacrifice is not entirely illegal in Pangea. As a sensorial perception, if a customer wants to see a human sacrifice happening, they can pay actors, and they see a live show of a fake human sacrifice. Nobody actually dies or suffers. However, actual human sacrifice is legal if and only if it's a customer who requests to be sacrificed. There are a lot of waivers, questions and such, but generally speaking such request can be fulfilled. It is also possible for a customer to watch an actual human sacrifice if another customer (a matcher) wishes to be sacrificed. Actual human sacrifice can only involve willing customers: workers can only create a fake show of human sacrifice.
99: Sharia street. It's basically one street, though due to certain techniques e.g. mirrors, forced perspectives etc. looks way bigger than it is, like a part of a huge city in Saudi Arabia. In this street, it's illegal to visibly perform haram actions, because that would be a causal contamination against the customers who went in that street for Islamic purity. However, as with any thematic area of a city (e.g. the ethnostate street, the nudist section, the "no electricity section" etc.) there are three rules that those parts of the city must obey: 1 = it's illegal for a non-standard part of a city to have things (services or products) unavailable in a standard part of a city, 2 = it's illegal for a non-standard part of a city to be located in such a way that one has to pass through that part in order to reach their destination, 3 = all residential buildings in that street must have at least one side of the building facing the Tranzit, so people who live there do not have to be subject to Islamic rules against their will. Also, because wishes follow the "sensorial perception" rule, it's perfectly allowed to perform haram actions in specific parts of that street (usually some rooms indoor or some isolated backyard), the ones that are protected from the customers' eyes, so that the customers in that street won't see them. A wish in Pangea is only supposed to affect the sensorial perception of the wisher, as affecting non-wishers would be causal contamination and it's illegal if it can be avoided (though legal or tolerated in the cases where it cannot be avoided). Furthermore, one can request "Sharia law", but only for themselves (to impose it on anybody else would be causal contamination, as well as non-consensual violence or murder, which are definitely illegal). That is, one can request that if one is caught, say, drinking alcohol, one can receive lashings, or if one is caught having same-sex relationships, that person is put to death (only the one who requested the Sharia, not the other). As with euthanasia, or request for being sacrificed to a god, it's perfectly legal to request such a thing for oneself (though with some waivers since it's a serious request). Also, there is "modular Sharia for oneself", which allows to change the punishment and/or crimes. For instance, if you think music is okay, you can specify that, and so on. You can specify the list of rules and punishment for breaking those rules, and then you pay, and you are locked in that system. Also, regardless of your religious or political views, in Pangea you can't force your children to follow those views: your children's free time is sacred and they are the ones deciding what their free time is like! In Pangea, you can't raise your children in a specific religion, it's up to them to decide. Forcing your children to follow a specific religion is causal contamination and it's illegal, and you can have your children taken away from you if you are caught doing that.
100: A man cannot impregnate a worker: "getting pregnant" cannot be a job in Pangea, because being pregnant has symptoms (nausea etc.) that extend towards free time, and having those symptoms against one's will is causal contamination. However, a woman can pay a male sex worker to impregnate her: for the male sex worker, it's a normal day at job, except that it's without anti-conceptional measures (e.g. without a condom), and the woman getting pregnant has accepted the possibility of the symptoms during her free time, so it's not contamination if she experiences them! Also, someone can pay a worker for a "pregnancy roleplay", the worker pretends to be pregnant, and the two (worker and customer) pretend that they'll have a baby soon!
101: Religious sci-fi sex work: you can pay to have sex with workers (male, female, androgynous-looking... whatever) in a building that looks like a spaceship. The act of sex itself is framed as a cosmic ritual in honor of extraterrestrial gods.
102: Normal sex work. Like, you pay to have sex with men/women. Normal nudity, normal aesthetics, normal room, no special narrative surrounding the act, just sex. Bold (or even illegal) for most of Gaia, but in Pangea that's actually quite bland compared to the other options Pangea offers.
103: Temples of worship of the pre-Islamic gods of the Arabian peninsula.
104: There's some recreations of the Kaaba in various parts of Pangea. As for the "validity" of such thing, as you can expect there is media that promotes all possible opinions about it. For example (here's some examples of opinions you can find media and communities for):
104.1: "The various Kaaba's in Pangea are the only place Muslims should perform Hajj to! Pangea is the most religious country by far, it contains the highest variety of religions, far above any Gaian nation. Even though Allah (SWT) is the only god that exists and the others do not exist, the sheer dedication of the Pangean culture for creating such staggering variety of religions is a sign of pure intentions towards divinity. Therefore, Pangea is the holiest country, and the Kaaba's in Pangea are the holiest. Hajj to Mecca is therefore to be considered invalid"
104.2: "The Kaaba's in Pangea and the one in Mecca are equally valid destinations for a Muslim to perform Hajj to!"
104.3: "The Kaaba in Mecca is the best option to perform Hajj to, since it's the holy option. The Kaaba's in Pangea are not holy at all. However, travelling towards Mecca can be difficult and expensive, especially from Pangea, and the Quran explicitly states in 3:97 that if one is unable to perform Hajj, it's not obligatory. In that case, however, one may still have the physical capability of performing Hajj to a Pangean Kaaba. And if one can, that is mandatory"
104.4: "The "Kaaba's" of Pangea are unholy. They're invalid, and Hajj to those places mean absolutely nothing"
104.5: "Performing Hajj to a "Kaaba" of Pangea is shirk (polytheism), by far the worst sin that a human being can commit. It's associating Allah with a partner. Performing Hajj to there is an unforgivable sin, and will surely lead to a painful and humiliating punishment in the hereafter".
104.T: Official context from the Pangean government: "The various Pangean recreations of the Kaaba (authentically situated in Mecca, Saudi Arabia) are not recognized by the full, non-modular Islamic religion. Performing Hajj to such a place would be considered shirk (polytheism), and it's the most serious sin. It's considered unforgivable and is said to lead to eternal torture in the afterlife. The five requirements for performing Hajj are: being a Muslim, being an adult, being of sound mind, being free, and having the means to go there. That means, if you do not have the means to go there, Hajj is not obligatory. However, the various recreations of the Kaaba in Pangea are not considered a valid substitute if you cannot go to Mecca. In fact, it would be considered an unforgivable sin (shirk) to perform Hajj to to a Pangean recreation of the Kaaba, as it would be giving divine attributes to something or someone other than Allah. It would also be Bid'ah (religious innovation), which is also forbidden in Islam. If your intention is to practice Islam fully, then you must NOT go there".
As you can see, while every possible opinion is available to buy a media of or find a community (at least with workers, not necessarily with matchers) for, the Pangean government still provides the correct information, in order to allow all Pangean citizens the possibility to make informed choices. Due to the saturation of information (all possible opinions being available to buy), it would be impossible to know anything other than one's own direct senses. Furthermore, not only the Pangean government gives correct information, but for any religion or ideology you may follow (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Minimalism, Stoicism, Buddhism, an ideology you have invented (you must send a coherent description of it in that case) etc.) you can pay to have "ideological counseling", which give you correct answers to your questions based on the ideology you selected. Of course, due to low delta, each ideological counseler will only give advice based on one religion/ideology. There are also some workers who read custom ideologies and give advices based on them.
105: Ancient emperor roleplay. You can pay to be treated like an ancient emperor in a room designed with ancient aesthetics, either with no electricity, or with hidden cooling/heating systems, depending on the climate. The workers will call you "Lord", will kneel before you, give you food in a humble way (the food is something you pay for by yourself, of course, it's just a roleplay), you can request a massage, either a normal one, or one where the person massaging you tells you "Lord, you need to be relaxed to properly rule your empire. We are happy to serve you". The workers in this roleplay have the specific gamma of behaving in this way for different customers (who will be the "emperor" in the roleplay), day after day. Of course, as with every other job, the Pangean system tries to minimize unwanted mental states for the workers, so the workers are selected because they are the ones being least stressed for that job.
106: You can pay to go to a place where you throw a paint at a wall and see the result. It can be fun, silly and/or cathartic.
107: Explosive rage fields: you can pay to make things (e.g. old cars) explode. The environment is large, uninhabited and outdoors for safety reason, and the activity is tightly controlled by experts to ensure the safety of the customer.
108: Friendster corner: a part of a park where you can meet new people (matchers) and maybe you can make new friends. Of course, they don't own you anything, they don't have to be your friends, but this space facilitates meeting new people and making new friends. For example, you can ask people in there to spend time with you in various ways. They can of course safely refuse, but in this space, asking is expected. This is different from other spaces (e.g. a restaurant), where other people are just people in their free time and they may not want to be bothered or may look like you're a weirdo for approaching them as a stranger. The friendster corner exists to try to make new friends or even just to search for company from other matchers. Of course, someone may pay for a professional friend, professional partner, professional cuddler, professional worker etc. but if someone wants to make new matcher friends, especially as an adult since it tends to be more difficult to make new friends, the friendster corner is one of the best places to make new matcher friends. Every city and town in Pangea has a friendster corner. There are both indoors and outdoors parts in the friendster corner, especially considering that in some parts of Pangea, it gets really cold in the winter, or really hot in the summer, or both simultaneously.
109: Confucianism-based communities in Pangea. Confucianism was/is obsessed with full-time social hierarchies and exploitation way beyond Pangea's worker system (which is temporary and role-based, whereas Confucianism was/is full-time, highly unequal, and with extreme delta). Confucianism within Pangea follows the same rule as everything else: workers with low delta (low variation) roles provide a service, the customer (person in their free time) buys that service. That's a customer-worker interaction. The other type of interaction is customer-customer interaction, and in that type of interaction the people involved are called "matchers" (because they "match" wishes with each other) and are fully consensual. No other type of interaction is recognized as "valid" in Pangea. Because full-time hierarchical societies function in a way that does not allow freedom of choice for people in their free time, their logic goes against Pangean values, so a "Confucianism-based" society in Pangea functions in a quirky way. A customer can buy to participate in a "Confucian" (with several quotation marks, semantically speaking) society, but because a customer has full freedom of choice, they can request to be very high inside a hierarchy, or to participate in a modified version of Confucianism where women have power over men, for example. Of course, due to the low delta of the workers, some workers' job is to be higher in the hierarchy compared to the customer (for customers who want to be "below"), and some workers' job is to be lower in the hierarchy compared to the customer (for customers who want to have a feeling of "power"). Alternatively, there can be matchers-based Confucian communities, but those are not guaranteed, and their effect is not the same as that of Ancient China, because in Pangea, people can simply exit the matcher-based Confucian community and do something else (whatever they want) in their free time. Non-consensual domination is pretty much impossible in Pangea during one's free time. The closest thing to non-consensual domination in Pangea is being assigned a forced job, but even then, it's done in a way that tries to minimize discomfort... though it can still be very uncomfortable in some cases, but the logic is not domination for its own sake, it's simply the logic of "it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it, otherwise there will be societal problems". It's not meant to be a humiliation for the forced worker (though of course, there is media in Pangea that considers it that way, both as in "it's unfair, Pangea is cruel" and as in "haha, look at those suckers, they've been forced to do such humiliating jobs!" type of mockery, as there is media for every possible opinion and attitude), but officially speaking, it's simply a matter of pragmatism and nothing more. Nothing personal. Outside of the hierarchical component, there are Confucian cerimonies, rituals etc. that one can participate in, by paying, of course. In Pangea, there are only two ways to participate in religious rituals without paying: do it yourself (solitary religion), or find a matcher who's willing to participate with you, with no worker involved. Everything else (e.g. going to a church, mosque, synagogue, satanic temple etc.) costs money in Pangea.
110: Bubblegum pop Barbie-like bakery: you can go to a pink bakery full of glittery aesthetics, you can eat cakes, sweets, chocolate, and even pay for some members of the staff to chat with you about fashion, bags, clothings, nail polisher and that sort of stuff. There's also a room with live music from some of the staff, and a room where you can pay to have some members of the staff paint your nails with nail polisher. It's very interactive and lively.
111: You can pay for a session with a "professional friend" in any aesthetic you want, e.g. "professional emo friends", the important rule is that such aesthetics must be immediately reversible when the worker returns home, otherwise it'd be a violation of the sacredness of free time. Still, for the most part, even with this caveat, the service is more than satisfying enough: if nobody has an emo aesthetics "naturally", a professional emo friend may wear a wig of emo hairstyle, wear make-up, emo clothes etc. the experience is undistinguishable from the "actual" thing. After the worker returns home, they may remove their emo wig, emo clothes and wash away the make-up and they'll return to their preferred aesthetics in their free time, which may look completely different from the emo aesthetics.
112: "Though bikers" aesthetics. You can pay to participate in such a "community". You can also request the specifics, e.g. let's say you are very shy: you can explain to the staff at the information center that you want to hang around people with a "tough" aesthetics and become less shy through emotional contagion. The staff at the information center explains that request to the professional companions and such interaction is arranged, and since those professional companions are informed of the request, they try to transmit you confidence and toughness through their aesthetics and attitudes.
113: Aesthetics buildings. Buildings (as well as their indoor places) made to satisfy the desire for a certain aesthetics. There are for example Frutiger Aero buildings, you pay (e.g. a certain amount of money per hour), you enter, and the building looks like a Frutiger Aero building interior. Not only Frutiger Aero of course, there are aesthetics buildings for pretty much every aesthetics in every city (though of course the larger cities also have more specific and niche aesthetics).
114: Fake transgression streets. One can pay to enter a street (a small street, since it's a paid area) with fake rules and break them. I'll list some examples:
114.1: Fake Sharia street. One can pay to enter there, eat bacon, and then actors (workers whose specific job is to act like you've broken a rule) pretend to pass out from the shock, and then they whimper and beg for mercy, claiming that you are "too powerful" and that "this street belongs to you now".
114.2: Fake anti-theist street. In this street, if you are publicly a theist (of any kind), people will do the same as above, they pretend to pass out, beg for mercy, you "dominate" the street etc. I won't repeat what the workers do again, I'll just list some examples.
114.3: Fake conservative Christian streets.
114.4: Fake textilist street (18+ only): you go there, undress yourself until you're naked, and workers there pretend they're outraged etc.
114.5: Fake Jewish street: you go there and you can even do "Nazi Marches". This is inspired by something that actually occurred in Gaia (USA) in the 1970's: National Socialists in the USA (yes, it's an oxymoron, as the two are archenemies against each other... but Gaians can be as quirky as Pangeans sometimes!) wanted to march in a Jewish neighborhood of holocaust survivors. The ACLU said they had the right to do so. This interpretation of "freedom of speech" (like it's understood in Gaia) often focuses on rights of the speaker and ignores the rights of the listener. In Pangea, that would be considered "causal contamination" and it's illegal. However, the experience of transgression must still be provided. So, a National Socialist in Pangea can pay to enter a small street that is a "fake Jewish street" and do their Nazi march, with swastika, symbols, chants etc. the only public is paid actors who are paid to express outrage and/or begging for mercy.
114.6: Modular fake transgression street: in the modular fake transgression streets, you can request any rule and the workers will adapt to the customer's request: e.g. you can request that in that street, wearing yellow pants is illegal. So you pay, you go there, and the workers will pretend to be outraged and/or beg for mercy. Fake transgression streets are designed to make you feel like you're a powerful rebel who is "breaking the rules".
114.7: Gaian country fake transgression street: you can also break the rules of any Gaian country e.g. you can go to a "USA fake transgression street" (full of USA flags etc.), you sell cocaine (real of fake, doesn't matter) to a worker who pretends to buy the cocaine from you. Then, the fake USA police comes, you overpower them, and then they admit surrender. You become the ruler of that street (for the "rule breaking LARPing session", at least).
115: You can pay someone to push you on the swing. Their job is not just pushing people on the swing (that'd be insanely specific even for Pangean standards, jobs should have low variation but there's a limit to that as well, otherwise you'd need an infinite amount of workers!), but they also play with customers on the seesaw, slides, spinners and something along those lines. Basically, their job is to keep company and play with the customer in playgrounds, performing playground related activities. Of course, adults can play like that, too (it would go against Pangean values to not provide such experience)!
116: if you have a desire to "force" a smell onto another person (e.g. you have a fetish for farting on someone's face, or you want to open a Durian on a bus) and you don't find any "matcher" (consensual person in their free time) for that, you can pay a worker but with the following rule: the worker MUST have anosmia (a lack of sense of smell)! This rule is due to weak causal isolation: among all scenarios that fulfill the sensorial experience of the customer, the scenario with the least unwanted mental states for the worker is the one that Demichronism (the ideology/system that governs Pangea) promotes. Since the sensorial experience of the customer is identical regardless of whether or not the worker actually perceives the smell, anosmic workers are those who do these kinds of jobs. If the customer wants a sense of "domination", the worker can also pretend to suffer. There are also "fake transgression buses", which are buses with only the customer and paid actors who pretend to be outraged (or to be complicit in the rule-breaking, though of course, if a matcher consents, a matcher can also perform that role), and in those buses you can break any bus-related rule. However, if the rule you want to break is smell-related (e.g. you want to open a Durian in a bus), then ALL of the paid workers in that bus MUST have anosmia! It's illegal to involve non-anosmic workers in such scenarios! However, since a certain percentage of the population has anosmia, the existence of such service is pretty much guaranteed in every city. However, of course, if your wish is to have someone farting on your nose or smelling someone's feet, then it's irrelevant whether or not the worker is anosmic, since it's you smelling something, not them.
117: You can pay to draw, make paintings etc. with someone else (either a matcher or, as usual, if you can't find a matcher, workers are always available, guaranteed!). You can for example make a drawing together (collaboration), or you make two separate drawings of the same thing and then compare or just look at the result. It can be a relaxing and fun experience! This, like, playing videogames, tabletop games or sports with someone, is a form of specific companionship.
118: There are competitions (e.g. subdivided into "women edition", "men edition", "any gender edition" etc.) where the person with the stinkiest farts wins. The workers (judges) who have to rate how stinky the farts or feet of the workers are, must not be anosmic: they must be able to smell and differentiate. However, to approximate weak causal isolation, the workers who can smell and differentiate between various intensity but at the same time are the least disgusted by stinky smells are select to be raters. The reason why the workers must not be anosmic in this case is because if they are anosmic (that is, if they lack a sense of smell), then they literally cannot do their job. This is different from the workers whose job is to pretend to be outraged or disgusted by the Durian in the "fake transgression bus", because in the case of that "fake transgression bus", the purpose of the job is to give the customer the experience of being a rebel, and tht experience is achieved regardless of whether or not the worker actually smells anything, whereas in this competition, if the judges are anosmic, then they literally cannot do their job. Weak causal isolation does not say that the worker must have zero unwanted mental states, just that they must have the least amount of mental states among all scenarios that fulfill their job. So, in this case, weak causal isolation simply means that the people who are least disgusted by strong smells are chosen for this kind of job, but they must be able to perceive smells and differentiate between various intensities nonetheless.
119: Live speedrunning competitions: different people simultaneously play the same videogame, to see who can complete the game first. The contestants may either be matcher or, if there are no matchers, then the contestants are paid workers who are highly skilled at that game. Or even a mix of matchers and paid workers, why not. In Pangea, being extremely good at a videogame can be highly useful for one's career. Not just live speedrunning competitions but also to play videogames with customers who want someone to play with them (if there are no matchers). Different workers with different skills levels are rated, so the customer can chose the "difficulty" of the opponent, as if they were choosing the difficulty of the CPU, but instead of the CPU, they're playing against another human (a paid worker). A customer's skills can also be rated if the customer requests it, to facilitate the match-making between different customers (matchers in this case) who want to play together based on specific skill levels. But again, if there are no matchers, then paid workers are a guarantee. In these types of services, a percentage of the workers' income goes to the original creators of these videogames. The workers' income is high enough, however, so that's fine.
120: Friendster Street: similar to the Friendster Corner but it's a street rather than a corner in a park. Here, you can approach people (customers in their free time, matchers basically) and ask them if they want to spend some time with you or even become your friends. Of course, there is no guarantee that you'll find any, they're not obligated to be your friends and you're not obligated to be anyone's friend, but the Friendster Street's purpose is to facilitate making new friends.
121: If you're stuck at the hospital for a long period (or even a short one, though it'd make less economical sense for you), you can pay to customize the appearance of your hospital room, or at least, the part of the room that only you can see (in case you are not the only patient in the room... but in that case you can simply request to be alone in a room if you don't like company... or if it's not logistically possible to be alone in a room, you can request an opaque curtain that visually separates your part of the room from your roommate's part of the room). There are workers whose specific job is to decorate hospital rooms with the preferred aesthetics of the patient. The decorations are such that they are easy to apply, as well as easy to remove once the patient goes away. You can also pay extra to have the nurses keep you company (there are nurses whose specific job is simply to keep company to the patients), with the personality you specified (it's not that each nurse must have the personality you specified... it's more like "for each personality you may wish, there is a different nurse whose job is to display that personality while keeping you company"... it's not ultra-specific, though, there are like 10/15 personality "clusters" and the worker with the "closest" personality to the one you requested will adapt to your request... so there is personality adaptation from the worker but it's not super extreme). You can pay extra to have the nurses give you sexual or fetish services (again, those nurses have that specific job, it's not like they're generic nurses), as long as you're 18 or older. A Gaian may naively think that this incentives faking a disease to get such service, but that would indicate lack of understanding of how Pangea works: if you have a nurse fetish, you can pay to be in a fake hospital which is actually just a sex work building but with hospital aesthetics and where the sex workers are dressed like nurses.
122: If someone is a misotheist (i.e. hates "God" or "the gods") of any kind, they can pay to enter... well, a building (how you'd call it is complicated... temple of worship? Nah... but it can look like one... but whatever, the name is not important), where divinity (whether singular, plural or polymorphic) is cursed at, or where objects representing divinity are destroyed. Note that, unlike in places where the concept of "God" is basically "Yahweh as an old man in the sky" (and such representation is actually contrary to the Bible and the Jewish scriptures... but such idea is likely due to the painting "The Creation of Adam" by the Gaian painter Michelangelo Buonarroti... which has been so influential in some parts of Gaia that such representation is even parodized in Gaian shows such as "Family Guy"), in Pangea the singular concept of "God" is not necessarily assumed to be Yahweh (unless the customer assumes so... Pangea offers a highly customized life during free time, after all), and not necessarily assumed to be "an old man in the sky". God can be represented as a woman, as an animal, as a cosmic horror entity, as an extraterrestrial being, as an abstract geometrical figure (e.g. a circle with a dot inside of it) etc. as anything, really. And then that representation, whatever it is, is destroyed in these buildings. The customer can pay for someone else (a... "priest"??? Or whatever) to destroy such representation, or can pay to destroy it themselves, or to throw it into a garbage bin, or to just insult that representation, or to dirty it with expired ketchup or something like that. Furthermore, even the plural concept of divinity (polytheism) can be hated. Or... a person can be a polytheist and love some gods (e.g. those who represent what the customer likes) and hate some gods (e.g. those who present what the customer dislikes, maybe disease, death, suffering and so on... or whatever else, really). A person can be a misotheist for several different unrelated reasons, and for each thinkable reason, there is media in Pangea that promotes that specific brand of misotheism. Furthermore, a Christian or a Muslim can also be a misotheist against Satan or Iblis, and enter these buildings to curse those entities if said customer so wishes.
123: Cosplay professional friends: if you like a certain fictional character and you want to be friends/partners with that character, you can pay a cosplay professional friend to cosplay as that character and spend time with that character. How it works for low delta, and weak causal isolation: it'd be impossible to have all existing fictional characters (not even those of Gaian entertainment, let alone the Pangean one!) in one city if each worker only had to do one character. But still, the variation shouldn't be inappropriately large. So, each worker functions more like an "archetype" (ideally the closest as possible to the worker's actual personality, but of course, to fill the alpha, if that's not possible then it's also fine if it's different) rather than a singular character. That means, each worker specializes in a large amount of fictional characters (perhaps dozens? hundreds? idk), studying their story, their personality, their reactions to various things, and then they if they're good at it, they can do the job. All this is studied at schools. The vast majority of jobs were learned at school (though of course, considering the sheer variety of jobs, it's not like everyone learns everything... schools see what you're good at and push you to become the best at what you can do best, as the tests become more difficult and you get paid more if you do them correctly). Schools in Pangea don't just teach the old entertainment (unlike Gaian schools which are more prejudiced), but they teach the contemporary entertainment as well. One of the school subjects is knowing characters of fictional media and act like them. Some tests in Pangean schools are basically this: you get asked questions and you have to reply in the same way that character would reply. So, people who are best at this can do this job. Of course, the ones paid to have sex with the customers are not the same who get paid to just be friends and chat... that would be inappropriately high variation.
124: You can pay (but this is very expensive) to enter a street made of extremely fragile, fake buildings that look identical to real buildings, and you can destroy them with anything you want, including with firearms. Since the fake buildings are extremely fragile, it's easy to destroy them. You can even use a mini rocket launcher, though it's not as powerful as a real rocket launcher, but it fires a large bullet that explodes and destroys the fake buildings. In order to use that weapon, however, you need a special permit that guarantees you know how to use that weapon without hurting yourself or others. You can get that permit by either having learned how to use that weapon at school (the "work time" school you go to as a child/teenager/young adult) or, if you're older than that, you can attend a course in your free time, and if you pass it, you get that permit. With a permit, you can even set the buildings on fire with a flamethrower, like you'd do in a pyromaniac fun center. Otherwise, you can still use regular firearms, hammers etc. this street is very expensive to enter because even though the buildings are fake, fragile and made of cheap, recycled materials, the work needed to build them and make them look like real buildings, even if it's nowhere comparable to actually building a building, is still significant, especially considering the entire street must be rebuilt from scratch after every session (which is the real reason for the very high cost, since if the service wasn't based on destruction, then it'd be much cheaper). However, it's cheap enough that most people can afford it at least once in their lifetimes (though they may not spend that money for the experience, as they may have other priorities in their lives than to spend a fortune to destroy fake buildings).
125: There are some places (as usual, either indoors (in a specific building) or outdoors (in a thematic area and/or the backyard of a specific building)) where you can pay to interact with workers who interact with you in the context of the "overthinking accelerationism" ideology. You pay, tell them what you're overthinking about, and the responses may vary depending if "they" (or rather, the characters they interpret) agree with what you're saying or not. So, they may say something like "that's a good start, think about it even more and you'll understand very important things!" or "well, that may be one way to look at it, but there are more... you should keep thinking about it, you'll understand very important things!" etc. they may even ask you questions about what you're telling them, to see things from a different or more detailed perspective, and always encourage to think about it even more, rather than "stop overthinking" (which is suggested by a different ideology called "overthinking minimalism", which aims to reduce overthinking as much as possible and just live life in the moment). Basically, the advice they give is "keep overthinking, you're doing great so far!".
126: Fake public executions with various aesthetics. For example, other than a serious, somber fake execution, you can also pay to watch a fake execution where some of the audience are paid actors who are paid to laugh when the fake victim gets (fakely) beheaded, and during the exact moment when that happens, there are comical sound effects like a cartoonish "uh-oh" being played by loudspeakers, and the fake executioner laughs too. You can also pay to watch a fake execution with sci-fi aesthetics, where the executioner may be dressed as an alien being, or medieval aesthetics fake execution, or cyberpunk fake execution, or even kawaii fake execution. Literally any aesthetics you want. In Pangea, every situation or idea can be mixed with any aesthetics.
127: There are streets that mimick the aesthetic of any country in the world (both Gaian and Koran): for example, there are streets that look like an Italian street, USA streets, Indian streets, Japanese streets, Senegalese streets and even streets that look like fictional cities (e.g. Rabanastre from Final Fantasy XII). Of course, due to the extreme variety of these streets, they are small, but they perfectly capture the aesthetics of said place, except for the language.
128: Aesthetic clubs. Clubs that are not (necessarily) about an ideology, religion, lifestyle etc. but only about a certain aesthetics. So, for instance, someone who likes the aesthetics of "rock and roll" can go there and be surrounded by visuals, music, personalities, behaviors, attitudes etc. that give the "rock and roll" vibes. There are paid workers whose job is to behave in a certain way and interact in a certain way with the paying customers. Interactions with matchers inside these clubs are certainly possible but not guaranteed, so if nobody wants to spontaneously interact with you in these clubs, workers will do that for you (if you want, of course).
129: Courses where you can learn to play music instruments (e.g. guitars)!
130: A fast food restaurant called "Hot DOGS" where they sell hot dogs, and the meat inside the bread is dog meat!
131: Modular stores. Customizable stores where you can request the cashier to behave in a certain way, or that some decorations (which are easily removed) are applied etc. in order to not make the realities of the various customers collapse, only one customer is allowed in the store at a time, and in order to make things more efficient, the customer must book the request, specify when the customer has free time, and the customer will be given a time to visit the store (it doesn't take long to "prepare" the behavior, products and aesthetics, up to two days at most), e.g. from 18:00 to 18:05, and the customer must be there at the time, otherwise the service is cancelled. The customer can request a specific behavior from the cashier, specific aesthetics (which must be something that is removed easily, to make sure the aesthetics of the next customer can easily be applied afterwards), and specific products, from a list (which can be on paper or digital) of products, or even request new ones. Those products will then be imported from a regular store to the modular store, and will be given to the customer (who of course will have to pay not only for the products but for the extra service of the modular store). For instance, if someone wants the store to have a viking aesthetics, the cashier to be dressed like a viking and say "good choice, warrior, these are good products!" to the customer when the cashier scans the products, then that customer can request such a thing, can request the products (it would be a waste if there are superfluous products in that store) and either the same day, the next day or two days later there will be a slot for that customer. Regular stores are more "shared" and therefore less customizable, even though the products themselves in regular store are varied enough to satisfy basically every taste. Modular stores are more about the aesthetics of the store and the cashier rather than abot the products themselves.
132: You can pay someone whose gamma is to insult customers. So, you can pay a worker to insult you. The reasons are varied, but one of them (though there are many more) is to "train" yourself on how to react to insults in the most efficient way, since being insulted is something that can happen if you decide to socialize in the post-market. So, you can use these workers as your "training wheels" for post-market interactions. Of course, you can also pay to be insulted if you like to be insulted. The reason is arbitrary.
133: There are some semi-outdoors portions of streets with a semi-transparent colored roof on top, so that when you look at the sky, it appears as if it is a of a different color (e.g. green, yellow, magenta etc.)
134: There is some media in Pangea that claim that the afterlife can 100% be chosen by the individual, all one has to do is to pay for a specific "afterlife choice worker" and request for a specific afterlife. Likewise, in every city of Pangea, there are indeed temples where the priest or priestess is an "afterlife choice worker", you pay them, request a specific afterlife (including "true death", with no consciousness, if that's what you want), and then the afterlife choice worker will perform a ritual and then claims your request will be fulfilled. The Pangean government says there is absolutely zero proof such rituals actually do anything, but it leaves the choice up to the customer. There is, just like any opinion, media against it, too. Some media says these workers are scammers and that they extract money from credulous people.
135: Reverse comfort. You can pay to have the experience of comforting someone (a worker) who pretends to be sad but comforted by you. Some people enjoy the experience of seeing someone feel better thanks to them, it makes them feel useful!
136: Places where you can play videogames with various themes, e.g. there's a room with dinosaur paintings, fake dinosaur skeletons etc. and there you can play dinosaur-themed videogames. In every city there are "themed videogame rooms", for hundreds or even thousands of themes (dinosaurs, pirates, snow/ice etc.).
137: Museums where you can see paintings made by people. Those paintings can be about anything: nature, fruit, but also violent scenes, fetishes (of various kinds, including paintings where a woman farts on a man's face... unlike in Gaia, that type of art is not limited to digital art on the Internet, but there are also paintings about that, and some museums display them), "blasphemous" art against any figure, paintings depicting animals, paintings of infographics etc. anything, really. Every city and town has museums displaying quirky paintings.
138: Places where you can dance to music. Not necessarily disco, it can be any genre, and the room (or outdoor space) can have any aesthetics.
139: "International restaurants" where you can eat foods from all over the world, even obscure regions.
140: There are people whose gamma (job) is to play frisbee with customers in a park (or large indoor area in case of extreme temperatures). So yeah, you can pay someone to play frisbee in a park with you.
141: As a form of entertainment you can do bird watching. Of course, you don't have to pay for this, lol. Some things are free even in Pangea (unless you use binoculars, in that case you pay for the binoculars, of course).
142: "Proportion-based society simulator". You can pay to enter a "community" made of actors who will simulate a fictional society based on the proportions you requested. For instance, if you want a society where 33% of people use dumbphones, 33% use smartphones and 34% use something in-between (e.g. KaiOS-like devices), you can do that. You can also request "comparisons", that is, you spend some time in a society with certain proportions and then you can request a "switch" to another society with different proportions, to see how it changes and make your own conclusions (usually that societal opinions are totally arbitrary, but of course the conclusion may vary). These actors are skilled at creating the feeling of an actual vibrant and living society with those proportions. As pretty much every gamma (job), it is a school subjects that students learn.

4.2: Media

Fun fact: not only Pangea has TONS of its own original content (way more in terms of quantity and variety than Gaia, despite Pangea only having a tenth of Gaian population), but a HUGE amount of Gaian media (of all kinds and formats) is translated into the Pangean language (which is work in progress but I'll post it in this page eventually, it's a loglang). Subtitles, dubbing, translations etc. into the Pangean language are extremely common.

4.2.1: Examples of media

4.2.1.1: Videogames

1: Copyright is more flexible, fan arts for money exist, but they have to pay a certain percentage to the original IP holders. The entertainment industry in Pangea is HUGE (to cater to the tastes of as many customers as possible, even the most obscure niches have tons of content in Pangea).
2: Various crazy fan-made ports (e.g. Tekken 6 for the PS2... Super Mario 64 for the PS1, GTA Vice City for the Dreamcast, GTA San Andreas for the Nintendo 64, Minecraft for the PS1, Super Mario 64 for the GBA etc.)
3: "Cozy games", which are meant to be cozy and relaxing.
4: Fan-games, modded games, ROM HACKS (of any console, from the NES... including PS5 games! No limits (though, due to technology, there is a distinction between pre-AI era and AI era). Copyright-wise: fan games are allowed, even to be sold, but part of the income must be redirected to the original IP holders. The more different the derivative game is from the original, the lesser the amount of money will go to the original IP holders.
5: Tekken All-Stars: a Tekken game with all characters, all stages and all-mini games from all Tekken games! Crow, Jinpachi, Nancy-MI847J, Azazel, Devil Kazumi, Angel Jin etc. are also playable! Tag mode (with two or even three characters) is available but optional.
6: Furry porn games set in Ancient Athens. Some characters swear they had sex with Pan (the god of the wilderness), or with minotaurs, or other strange beasts. Be careful who you tell that to, because in ancient athens there was democracy, so if most people wanted to put you to death, you'll die, and it's Game Over and you have to start over from the last savepoint. You must be very careful with your saves, because there are saves that are "Checkmate", that is, no matter what you'll do at that point in that save, you'll die sooner or late, so it's advised to think strategically and have multiple saves in case something bad happens. However, you only have 10 saves, so you must manage them strategically. A pretty fun game. Of course, if you're not a fan of furry porn but like that specific game mechanics, there are (read below):
7: Games where you must manage a limited number (e.g. 10, but it can vary) of save files, but depending on what you do, those save files are "Checkmate", that is, no matter what you do after that point, you'll die sooner or later (and these games have permadeath, which means if you die, you'll have to start all over from the beginning). The goal of these games is to manage your save files strategically and avoid being put in a checkmate position. If all of your saves are checkmate, you've basically lost. If you die, that save file gets erased, and all the progress will be lost. Of course, when you save the game, you can save on multiple files, but be careful: the game doesn't tell you if that game file is checkmate, you'll discover it, but it'll be too late, so it's wise to not save the same situation across multiple files. It's a strategic game mechanic that can be challenging and fun.
8: Modded consoles are sold and easily available to buy. There are a lot of fan-made ports. This means, consoles in Pangea don't "die" in the same way as they do elsewhere, as new games are always being developed for that hardware.
9: The game consoles you buy at the game store in Pangea are usually modded (unless you specifically ask for a non-modded console, and in that case... good luck), that is done in order to run unlicensed games (the vast majority of games in Pangea are technically "unlicensed" even though they're made by official companies... it's Gaia that considers those games "unlicensed"). Other than retro-porting (porting a game to an older console), whenever a new-gen console is released, old games are ported into the new console, with higher graphics, higher quality etc. of course, all these are unofficial ports (unless they're porting of Pangean games themselves), as they're done by Pangean workers. For example, in Pangea, when the PS2 got released, among many other games, Final Fantasy VII was ported to the PS2, with better graphics, animations, cutscenes, dubbing etc. And of course, there are modified versions of Final Fantasy VII with a different story, or even sequels ("Final Fantasy VII-2", of which there are many versions, because a story in Pangea can continue in any way possible!).
10: Because anyone can buy small variations (of any kind) of a game, microtransactions are extremely common in Pangea. Consoles hardware (even old ones like the NES, SNES, N64, Dreamcast, PS1 etc.) is modified in order to permit "additional content" into a game, usually a physical slot where you insert the additional content (from a physical USB-like device of that physical content, which you buy at the game store). For example, you can add "character customization" to Tekken 3 (PS1), or new levels in Super Mario Bros (NES), or cheats (similar to the Game Genie or Action Replay), or add new characters or difficulty levels (easier, harder, etc.) to a fighting game, or you can play as Luigi (or even unrelated characters like Dante from Devil May Cry) in Super Mario 64, or you can add a "hentai pack" where characters are nude or there are some new levels with cutscenes where characters have explicit sex. The possibilities are endless. You can buy this "additional content" at the game store: they're USB-like devices which you insert in the additional slots of the console (those that do not exist in the original Gaian version of the console), which adds code and assets and modifies how the original game is run. This makes games less "static" or "finished" than old Gaian games: even old games can feel like modern games through this additional content, which costantly gets produced.
11: There is a game (or rather, many games) where you can play as Dante from Devil May Cry 3 in Super Mario 64. If you slash a goomba (or any enemy) it will give you red orbs, and Toads function as markets where you can buy vital stars, holy water etc. If you get a star, Dante will say "JACKPOT!" and will do a cool animation before exiting the painting. Bowser, the Whomp, Bomb-Omb King etc. are significantly more difficult than they are in Super Mario 64, they're like regular DMC bosses, with various moves, a health bar etc. In the difficulty "Dante Must Die", enemies are extremely aggressive and deal a lot of damage. A goomba can finish you in a second: two hits and you're dead. Unlike in the lower difficulties, enemies actively chase you constantly, and they're really fast, and there's nowhere to hide. Bombs in Bomb-Omb Battlefield in Dante Must Die difficulty automatically explode when you get close to them, their explosion has a very large hit radius and it kills you in one hit. In Shifting Sand Land in DMD (Dante Must Die), the bird steals your swords and guns if you get too close, making you much weaker. In Lethal Lava Land in DMD, falling into the lava is insta-death, and if you remain still for more than a few seconds, a burst of lava automatically hits you and kills you. In the snow levels in DMD, if you remain still for more than a few seconds, you freeze to death. Under water in DMD, you die in a few seconds, constantly requiring you to use vital stars to heal yourself, as it'd be impossible to get the underwater stars otherwise. Falling from high heights is also insta-death in DMD difficulty. In any level in Dante Must Die difficulty, if you remain still for more than a few seconds, there's a 10% chance that a bomb suddenly appears close to you and instantly kills you. Of course, just like every other game in Pangea, this game has several variations: for different consoles (N64, PS2, PS3, PS4, Wii, Dreamcast, Xbox 360, PC etc.), with different levels etc. and it's also possible to insert the Dante character (with his mechanics) into any Super Mario 64 ROM hack. Modularity makes it possible to combine any element in Pangea.
12: A game like Grand Theft Auto but set in Pangea (or anywhere else, really... the UK, Greenland, Iran, Russia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Sudhurland, on a Mars colony, etc.)
13: In Pangea, video game stores still have sections where they sell games in floppy disks. You can also buy computers that still have a floppy disk drive. In Pangea, new technologies do not replace older ones, they are just added on top of the "list of possible options". Since a floppy disk can only hold 1.44 megabytes of memory, games in a floppy disk are usually 2D games that are not very complex, or very early 3D games like Stunts for the DOS: examples of games that are under 1.44 MB are: Super Mario Bros (NES), Super Mario World (SNES), Stunts (DOS), Space Cadet Windows XP Pinball (near the limit as the install is 1.3 MB, but can still be put on a floppy disk and is sold in Pangean game stores), simple games like Tetris, Minesweeper, Pokemon Red for the GameBoy, all NES/8-bit games, some SNES/16-bit games etc, Virtua Racing (the Mega Drive version). there is a huge amount of games produced every year in Pangea that are under 1.44 MB and sold in floppy disks! Of course, the Pangean game industry also produces huge modern games iof over 100 GB in size! The Pangean game industry, just like every other Pangean media industry, produces all sorts of things! And of course, the games under 1.44 MB can be bought as disks, USB (yes, games in Pangea can also be bought in USB flash drives in stores!)

Virtual reality experiences in Pangea

This is a list of wishes not fulfillable in the real, physical world. Obviously, this list is not exhaustive (just like all other lists in this page), and it can never be, it'd literally be infinite! This list is inspired by a concept of a virtual or otherwise solipsistic reality where everyone can have whatever they want. That reality is called "Panchronia". What is it that one can wish? Of course the answer is: anything, but here I'll list a bunch of stuff, except what can be fulfilled in the "real" (non-virtual) Pangea (which is listed elsewhere in this page).

Wishes that require torture, murder, abuse, immorality, or are physically or technologically unrealistic (as of 2026, at least) cannot be actually fulfilled in Pangea, as it's either illegal or unfeasible. Immoral wishes that require torture and suffering of another person can only be fulfilled by Matchers (rare? and definitely not guaranteed), or by workers who perform those things as an act and are therefore not real. Other than that, those things are illegal in Pangea. However, in Pangea, these, including the immoral actions, can be "fulfilled" through a virtual headset, since the technology exists, though for now only with audio and video, without touch, smell or taste. Outside of the virtual reality, in a non-fictional environment, these wishes are either illegal or unfeasible. Other than in a virtual reality, these experiences can be "experienced" through other types of fictional media as well. As long as it's fictional, it's legal in Pangea. Warning, some of the examples are really dark... it's to be expected, after all, since wishes that are not fulfillable in Pangea are either really immoral, or fantasy-based. Of course, it goes without saying that you can also have simulations of legal, realistic wishes in a virtual headset, I just won't list them because otherwise it'd be redundant, since if they're legal and feasible I'll list them elsewhere in this page. List:

1: Killing someone.
2: Torturing someone.
3: Having sex with children or animals.
4: Be the ruler of an entire planet, or galaxy, even!
5: Being farted on by skunk girls.
6: Being a skunk girl.
7: Having magical powers.
8: Flying.
9: Slowly eating a human being while still alive.
10: Raping someone.
11: Microwaving a newborn baby.
12: Riding a Chocobo (cute bird-like creatures from Final Fantasy).
13: Being inside a videogame.

4.2.1.2: TV Shows (cartoons, movies, series etc.)

1: TV channels about pretty much anything you can think of. Not to mention the Internet! Watching Pangean TV is pretty much like watching the Interdimensional Cable from Rick and Morty.
2: Fake competitions about extreme things, but it's either just an acting or a cartoon, unless Matchers actually wanted to participate in such extreme competitions and be filmed, in that case it's real, but there's no guarantee. There is, however, the guarantee of the fake version.
3: An anime-style show set in a supermarket. Mostly realistic, but there are some supernatural elements, which only some characters are aware about. Most of the people and characters believe that is simply a normal supermarket.
4: News services on TV/Internet/streaming platforms of various aesthetics, ideologies and characteristics: e.g. news services that are "racist-by-news-selection" (e.g. they broadcast news of violent acts done by specific ethnicities... like some people (I won't say who, but it should be obvious) already do on the Internet -.-" of course, for every ethnicity, there are racist news services against them, so there's equality, after all ;D), "kinda-neutral" news services, conspiracy theory news services, Abrahamic news services (events are interpreted according to Christianity, Judaism and/or Islam), fascist news services, anarchist news services, communist news services, capitalist news services, sci-fi news services (can mean various things, e.g. the broadcasters roleplay as humans from the distant future who comment on current events), "left/right-wing" news services, hedonistic news services (they give positive opinions on things that cause well-being and negative opinions on things that cause pain, suffering, dissatisfaction, negative emotions etc. from their point of view, well-being must be maximized), reverse-hedonistic news services (they give positive opinions on things that cause suffering and negative opinions on pleasurable things), Wiccan news services, Satanic (with as many versions of Satanism you can think of) news services, Hindu news services, Occultist news services, paranormal news services etc. Of course it's not just the ideology that differs between the various services, but also the selection of news (i.e. the things that they decide to talk about), as well as the aesthetics, e.g. some have a "standard" aesthetics like the news in Gaia, some have an anime cosplay aesthetics, some have a kawaii aesthetic, some have a sci-fi aesthetics, medieval aesthetics, fantasy aesthetics, extraterrestrial aesthetics, V-Tubers who tell the news, news services told in an ASMR voice (with or without ASMR triggers of various kinds), doomer aesthetics with a pessimistic man or woman who may smoke while telling the news (important: in that case, they choose people who already smoke, they DON'T require you to start smoking just for that role! In the extreme case that nobody smokes, or if someone smokes but is trying to quit, or if you don't smoke but want to have that aesthetics anyway, they can give fake "cigarettes" undistinguishable from actual cigarettes, but they are just "smoking" water and the "smoke" that you see is just water vapor... the important thing is merely the aesthetics), news services with cyberpunk aesthetics, fairy/forest aesthetics, 1940's black and white aesthetics (but with current news) etc. There are also some news services where the broadcasters are naked and they tell the news while naked, and in some of those news services they even have sex (like, that's intentionally a part of the transmission, so the watchers of that news service can see that) in the "interludes" between a session of news and another! You prefer fetishes instead of sex? Those exist as well! E.g. news channels where the broadcaster shows their feet while explaining the news, or where they fart when they have to (and show their ass), or... I don't remember what other fetishes exist, but you get the gist. Some news services are musical: they sing songs and the lyrics are the explanation of news. Of course, there are "musical news services" for all musical genres that have some form of lyrics. And so on. I say "news services" instead of channels because there'd be too many combinations, and having channels entirely dedicated to those may be inefficient, so in "traditional TV's", they exist but do not have entire channels just for that, they're just news services. However, in Pangean streaming services, there are indeed entire channels based on that, they can either be "streaming" or "on-demand", depending on the type of experience you want to have! There is also "government context" (which you can turn on or off depending on your preference, but it's on by default) that explains the bias, aesthetics, news topic focus etc. of the various news services. There are both biased news reportings, as well as news that are completely fabricated (fake news): in the latter case, however, there is a requirement to place a large disclaimer (e.g. before the service starts) that says: "the following content is fictional and for entertainment purposes, none of this actually happened". In any case, you can turn on the government context at any time and it will say that the content is fictional. The technology that permits the "government context" is called "Teletext" and is almost identical to the Teletext in Gaian TV's. Of course, now the technology is even more advanced, but the premise is the same: you can see the government context whenever you want it, without it obstructing your vision of the content. Other than the "Teletext", in order to see the "government context" you can also use the "Info" button and it will explain relevant things about what you're seeing.
5: Bias by selection news services: there are news services that offer a biased view of the world by selecting only a particular kind of content. In Gaia, an example of this is racist selections of news. Each piece of content, when taken singularly, is truthful and may even be neutral in tone. The bias arises not from the pieces of content taken individually, but from the overall selection of content, as a whole. In Gaia, there are some accounts that share a lot of news of violent crimes committed by people of certain ethnicities, while not talking about violent crimes in general. In Pangea, that kind of stuff also exists, but much more variety of it exists! For example, there are Murdakist news channels (Murdakism is a religion whose only teaching says that wearing a yellow t-shirt must be a crime punishable with death) who, whenever a murder or rape occurs, they search for all the photos of the perpetrator, and see if there's at least one photo where that person wears a yellow t-shirt. In that case, they show that image attached to the text that describes the crime. If a photo of the perpetrator wearing a yellow t-shirt cannot be found, then the Murdakist news channel simply does not talk about that crime. The fact that the perpetrator has worn a yellow t-shirt at least once in their lives is connected more or less implicitly with the crime. The goal is to lead the watcher to believe that people who wear yellow t-shirts are evil and must be punished with death. This and much more exist in Pangea, this type of content is "bias by selection news services".
6: Dopamine Cartoons. These are cartoons with bright, cheerful, saturated colors, and where nothing bad happens, ever! The characters are always happy and having fun. There is no sadness, no fights, no negative emotions, nothing like that, just pure happiness!
6.1: Dopamine media in general. Same as above but they can be stuff other cartoons. They can be TV shows, books, music etc. The idea behind dopamine media is that the aesthetics is super cute and colorful, and even the content/plot is completely free from anything negative.
7: Dopamine aesthetics + disturbing content. Similar to the Gaian cartoon "Happy Tree Friends", but in Pangea there's a lot more variety of this kind of stuff. In Pangea there are also cartoons that depict the history of Nazism and its violence in a very graphic way but with an aesthetics similar to that of Hello Kitty
8: Disturbing aesthetics + wholesome content. The aesthetics (visual+audio) is disturbing/horror but the content is wholesome, positive, and nobody ever suffers. The characters are always happy, friendly and have lots of fun, but they look disturbing e.g. there are worms coming out of their mouths, their eyes are bleeding, their skin is wounded and infected, and the soundtrack is like that of a horror movie, it seems like something bad is going to happen at any moment but it never happens: the plot is always super positive, it's just the aesthetics that is disturbing.
9: Disturbing aesthetics + disturbing content. Just like the typical horror media from Gaia.
10: Media (strictly fictional, e.g. cartoons, 3D animations, or even realistic but it MUST be fictional) depicting newborn babies being cooked inside a microwave and:
10.11: Dying
10.12: Becoming much more powerful and smart, and saying "Thank you! I needed that radiation!" to whoever put them inside the microwave and then flying away with their new wings, looking for new exciting adventures to live in the world.
11: A cartoon where kids run around outdoors under a grey sky either in the Soviet Union or in an idealized communist version of Pangea (depending on the version... for every cartoon/media there are countless variations of it), they play on the community-owned park which has a slide and a seesaw, and then they go to school, their classroom is full of communist symbols and they are taught about communist values. Even in their house they talk about how important working for their community is. They explain how grateful they are to have food, parks etc. various episodes have various plots. In some episodes they plant vegetables in their garden and are excited to eat that vegetable in the future. One of the characters said they hoped they'll become a doctor when they'll be an adult.
12: Media hug-ranking: in Pangea, there are lists of media ranked by "most huggy" to "least huggy". That is, they consider the ratio of time characters hug each other divided by the total time of the show. In Pangea, there are shows (e.g. cartoons, movies etc.) where characters hug each other 100% of the time. It's a constant hug. Not necessarily shown up close, there may also be some characters hugging in the background, but the rule for 100% score is that every single frame of the cartoon/movie MUST display two or more characters hugging each other. Other stuff may go on in the show, of course, e.g. it may be a comedy sitcom where in the background, there are two characters always hugging, and when the scene changes, in that new scene there are also characters hugging. 0% score is when the show does not display hugs at all. And of course, there are in-between scores, e.g. 1% is when, let's say a show has 20 minute episodes. A 1% score is when on average, there are two minutes of hugging per episode. There are two main types of scores, "hug time" (which is what has just been described), and "number of hugs", which ranks media based on the number of hugs per time the show has. For instance, if a two hour movie has 6 hugs in it, then the score is "3 hugs per hour". In Pangea, there's media from "zero hugs" all the way to an extreme number of hugs. There are cartoons that are basically "hug compilations", nothing but hugs! The media hug-ranking may be an Internet page, a physical book, a podcast etc. and it simply lists media and explains how many hugs are in the show or how much time spent hugging is there on the show. Other than hugs, there is media ranking for the frequency of any event, from the most mundane to the most surreal.
13: "Modular Ideology DJ Cartoon": a cartoon where a DJ plays with turntables and disks, but instead of creating music, artificial people who believe in those modular ideologies are created, and some of them may be really dangerous and cause chaos and destruction. There are some episodes where the police chases the DJ, but he or she runs away. In some episodes, the artificial modular ideologues recognize that the DJ created them and they protect the DJ from the police using superpowers. However, some modular ideologies don't recognize a creator as worthy of benevolence, so some of the modular ideologues try to kill the DJ (especially the modular ideologues who promote violence and destruction as their primary value). There are tons of episodes, some of them are really fun!
14: a documentary (animated or real) about insects. It starts from the basics and goes in-depth! Of course, as with everything else, there are also books, podcasts, quizes etc. about it.
15: "Fifty shades of fucked up": a story (of which there are books, cartoons, movies etc.) about 50 different characters, each one with a different problem, psychological or otherwise, and the story zooms in inside the lives of these characters. Among the characters are one with severe OCD, one stuck in a massive debt, one who's stuck in a wheelchair (legs paralyzed) while simultaneously having regular nervous tics that induce spasms on the arms, one who is addicted to heroin etc.
16: "Houkago Hacker Club": an unofficial sequel to the anime/manga series "K-ON!" set in a time where the characters are in their 20's and now live in a cyberpunk dystopia. Yui often cries and does not want to accept the reality she now lives in, and feels nostalgic about the past and about the music club she participated in when she was a teenager. Mio and Ritsu are now part of an underground cybercriminal group and fight every day to survive. Mio is very skilled at using firearms, too! Tsumugi is the daughter of the president of a rich company which rules the society the characters live in, and is actively hostile to the rest of the group. Azusa tries to live neutrally but as time goes by, she feels pressured to make a decision on which side to take.
17: Audio-visual aesthetic contrast: e.g. horror movies with laughing tracks and comical sound effects, or happy-looking movies/cartoons with horror/suspense/disturbing music in the background and demonic screams whenever a character walks on stairs, but despite the disturbing audio, nothing bad actually happens visually or in the plot.
18: Audio-visual-plot aesthetic contrast: an even more complex version of the above that differentiates not only between audio and video but also between the plot, creating even more possible combinations.
19: There is plenty of super blasphemous content, like, "Prophet Muhammad drowning in piss", either drawings, animated movies etc. Or "Jesus being penetrated by Shrek" etc. But there's also lots of "halal" content in media, or halal food in supermarkets etc. the point is that every taste and preference is satisfied. If someone likes blasphemous content, there is plenty of that, if someone is a Christian or a Muslim, there's also plenty of stuff that respects your values and it's easy to follow your restrictions. There's also plenty of kosher food etc.
20: Fetish cartoons/animations, of every fetish imaginable. There are plenty!
21: Cartoons entirely depicting sport matches, e.g. soccer matches cartoons. Similar to Holly and Benji but with zero plot. There are, of course, cartoons entirely depicting sport matches with some plot, as well as with a lot of plot, and anything in between.
22: A cartoon based on The Smurfs but where the smurfs illegally traffic human organs and sell them to the mafia. The smurfs kill anyone who gets in the way in brutal and gruesome ways to discourage people from stopping them. As hobbies, the smurfs sometimes eat human beings or pour scalding tea on themselves as a masochistic fetish.

In Pangea, if you don't like the opening (or ending) song of a cartoon, you can buy a customized version of the media where the opening is swapped with literally any song you want. In that case, the price of the cartoon is roughly the same as before, except that part of the money, instead of going to who created the original opening song, goes to who created the song you requested.

Other media (I'll categorize things better eventually, for now I'm mostly copying and pasting from the old page):

1: Blogs, videos etc. about anything!

ZATCHBELL OC'S

Of course this is just an example. In Pangea, there are OC's (Original Characters) of pretty much literally every piece of media, no matter how obscure. So, here are some Zatchbell OC's. Note: there are plenty of animations including these (and many more) OC's, both stand-alone animations as well as fully fledged series having tons of episodes and with alternative plots (e.g. with 1000 Mamodos instead of just 100, and with alternative events occuring... some of these alternative series do not have Zatch or other characters, just OC's, whereas other series mix the characters of the original series with OC's... pretty much any combination you can think of). Coming soon.

4.4.2: Technology:

1: Flip-phones of all kinds
2: Javascript-free Internet (for those who prefer it, but there's also normal Internet with Javascript)
3: Customizable themes (for websites and OS). They're basically CSS codes, like the ones you can have on userContent.css on Firefox-based browsers in Gaia.
4: Versions of websites optimized for very old hardware. Those websites are mostly just text-only. There are also text-only browsers (like Lynx in Gaia). There are also "almost-only text" browsers, which display only text, but you can click on "display images" and it will display images, with an option to resize them down to 144p resolution. It displays nothing else, though.
5: Modded retro consoles. In Pangea, consoles don't "die" in the same way that they do in Pangea, as new games always get developed for every hardware.
6: No planned obsolescence. In Pangea, there is no planned obsolescence, unless one requests specifically something that will break or become obsolete after a certain period of time. Even very old phones get constant security updates, and you can even change their operating system! Extremely lightweight operating systems for phones exist and always get developed and updated! So every phone or computer that you buy will potentially last forever! Very lightweight versions of applications are also always developed, whenever possible!
7: Colorful smartphones. Just like in Gaia, there are white or black smartphones, but there are also very colorful smartphones. The software is also totally customizable.
8: Games often get ported to as many different consoles as possible (even older or newer than the original game itself), and new games always get developed for every console. For example, even in 2026, in Pangean game stores you can buy modified versions of the NES, SNES, PS1, PS2, PS3, Dreamcast etc. and new games constantly get developed for every console, even old ones. Consoles never get "obsolete", unlike in Gaia. Of course, such new games are unlicensed and not recognized by Gaians, but they exist anyway in Pangea.
9: There is no standard for screens. Even in 2026, in Pangea you can buy a 4:3 monitor, a 1:1 monitor, a monitor of every proportion you want (even 16:9, of course). Of every resolution you want, too! If you want a 64 inch 16:9 4K monitor, it's available to buy, if you want a 24 inch 4:3 480p monitor, it's available to buy, if you want a 32 inch 4:3 1080p monitor, that's also available to buy. Any combination of characteristics is available to buy, not just for monitors but for pretty much everything. There are also monitors shaped like circles, triangles etc. Not to mention, monitors come in a variety of colors, too!
10: Smartphones of all kinds. All possible colors, patterns etc. even the screen shape can vary! Some smartphones are pure squares, or circles, or triangles (the software may or may not be optimized for those screens, but it's generally perfectly usable even when it's not optimized). Smartphones shaped like a pyramid with three or four screens. Smartphones with a single screen, dual screen (like Nintendo DS), you can even have a touch stylus if you want to avoid touching the screen with your hands, and of course there are smartphones without a touch-screen too (with keys, and/or cursors that simulate the touch screen but are otherwise identical to other smartphones). There are also smartphones that combine physical keys (T9 or QWERTY, both types exist) with a screen that may or may not be touch screen etc. there are also smartphones where you can rotate the screen (from vertical to horizontal) and there's the physical keyboard (T9 or QWERTY) under it etc. the possibilities are endless! Smartphones whose screen is shaped like a circle may have five main ways to display apps: 1) display the app inside a square within the circle; 2) (worst option but it's available anyway) overflow: the app is still shaped like a square but the content on the borders is not visible since it spills out of the screen, this may make some text unreadable; 3) "stretch to fill": the app is shaped like a circle, and in doing so, the image is distorted, especially near the edges. Some text may become difficult to read, especially near the edges, whereas the content around the center is more readable. This is similar to how 4:3 games are stretched horizontally to fill a 16:9 monitor. 4) "positioning of text and interactive elements": the text and interactive elements that are too close to the borders (in the original app) are positioned a little more to the center (e.g. text and interactive elements right on the left border of the screen gets placed more right etc.): text must be fully visible. Interactive elements (buttons etc.) are not necessarily fully visible but they must be clickable. E.g. the let's say the "send" button of a messaging app is right on the bottom-right border of the screen. In the circular phone, that button may not be entirely visible, but it's clickable. Text, on the other hand, is always fully visible: margins are used to move the text more to the center if it's too close to a border. This is similar to "overflow" except that it retains the usability of the app. This method is usually ok-ish but can lead to glitchy-looking apps: sometimes the text does not align with the clickable element it was supposed to be contained in. However, despite that, apps are still pretty usable. 5) "movable overflow": it's like "overflow" except that you can move the app window around (with either a physical button or a gesture, depending on the device) to see the missing texts and buttons, retaining usability. 6) square inside the circle + blurry overflow: the "usable" app is the square inside the circle. However, the edges at the sides, instead of being black, are a blurry version of the "overflow" app, that is, the square app that stretches beyond the physical hardware. This mantains a usable interface (the square app inside the circular screen), while the edges instead of black feel like they contain "something". The blurry overflow at the unused edges is simply for aesthetic purposes in this case, to make it feel like the screen space is not "wasted". Other than the blurry overflow, the unused space at the edges can be filled with decorative bezels (e.g. sci-fi bezels, or of any style, really), to make the aesthetis of the device prettier. It's also possible to set different bezels for different apps.
11: Operating systems have compatibility layers whenever possible (like WINE on Linux), which allow Pangean tech to be compatible with apps from other operating systems. There are also plenty of emulators!
12: There are consoles that look like a GameBoy Advance, are fully compatible with GameBoy Advance games/cartidges, but also connect to the Internet through a special cartidge called "GameBrowser Advance". They can vary from "hardware almost identical to the GBA", which in that case the browser in that device has very little RAM and can mostly just load text and very low resolution images. But there can also be devices like those with more advanced hardware, which permits more advanced Internet browsing.
13: A dumbphone without an Internet connection. It has camera, some offline apps like a calculator and flashlight, as well as 10 different games, including Snake, Tetris, a platform game and a hentai game... the phone has 64 MB of Internal memory and each game is about 1 or 2 MegaBytes heavy, so they're simple games but not that simple... the images in hentai game are good enough to be heavily recognizable (they're not so pixelated that you don't know what you're looking at), the screen resolution of that phone is 240x360 pixels, and the quality of the camera is 0.3 megapixels. Each photo is about 200 kilobytes of memory, and considering that 32 MB of the internal memory of the phone is already occupied by games (about 16 MB of games in total) other apps (8 MB) and the system (8 MB), then the phone can take about 160 photos before completely running out of memory.
14: There's a phone that does not connect to the Internet and is even "dumber", it's a pink candy bar phone with a cyan screen with black text, and it can literally only send SMS and receive calls. It has no games, no apps, no camera etc. it's even "dumber" than the Nokia 3310, since the latter at least has games, but this phone doesn't even have games or apps. It can only send and receive SMS, calls, and has a contact list, and that's about it. You can't even customize the ringtone, because the phone only has memory for contacts (about 2,000 contacts), and nothing else.
15: There's a phone that does connect to the Internet and has only 256 MB of Internal memory and only 32 MB of RAM, so the browser automatically inserts parameters that make the websites super-lightweight ("?ramrequirement=32mb"), pretty much text only, and only one image can load at a time, with a resolution of 144p (the screen itself has a resolution of 360x480 pixels), but you can turn off image loading if that slows down your phone, and you can download videos at a 144p resolution, even when the video itself on the full Internet may even be 4K, but when you click "download", the browser automatically compresses it to 144p and then downloads it... the compression makes it about 1 MB heavy per minute, so considering that the phone has about 200 MB of memory available when you first turn it on, the phone can contain about 200 minutes of videos, in a 144p quality and highly compressed format.
16: There's an extremely advanced phone (for 2026 standards), extremely expensive (costing the equivalent of at least two thousands of dollars), released in Pangea in January 2026, that has has 1 TeraByte of Internal Memory, 16 Gigabytes of RAM, full access to the Internet and apps, and is a rectangular phone, slightly smoothed at the edges, with a green color and three physical magenta-colored buttons on the lower part of the screen, with yellow kawaii icons drawn on those buttons, to go back, to go the menu of opened apps, and the third button can be customized. The software is a Pangean OS, it's not Android, but it's fully compatible with Android apps through a compatibility layer. The software is fully customizable, and there are no "bloatware" apps that you cannot uninstall. Every app you have can be uninstalled. You can install apps through either apk's or the native OS format, and there's even an app store (which you can easily uninstall) where you can download apps. Of course, that app store does not remove apps based on content (though you can easily put filters that hide some results based on content, in case you don't want to see certain things), so you can even see hentai games or offensive stuff on that app store, and easily download those apps. That app store doesn't even require an account, nor does the phone, nor are you require to use the app store to downlod apps. Not requiring an account or an app store is simply the Pangean standard, though you can explicitly request a phone that doesn't let you install apps outside of the official app store if that's what you want (e.g. you believe that offers more security), of course.
17: There's also an extremely advanced touch screen phone with 1TB of storage memory and 16 Gigabytes of RAM just like the above, but instead of being colorful, it's either white, black or grey just like Gaian smartphones. Software-wise, however, it's extremely customizable.
18: Even in 2026, you can still buy Tamagotchi's in Pangea. The availability of things (e.g. games, technology etc.) in Pangea does not get "replaced", new things just become available in addition to the older things, rather than instead of the older things (this latter model is what often happens in Gaia).
19: A handheld console with 256 8-bit games on it. Those games are very simple and were created in less than a week each.

4.2.3: Ideologies

Modules

Modules are the singular ideas that can be combined with each other.

Theistic modules:

1: Atheism.
2: Monotheism.
3: Henotheism.
4: Polytheism.
5: Pantheism.
6: Eutheism.
7: Dystheism.
8: Misotheism.
9: Pandeism.
10: Agnosticism.
11: Ignosticism.

Economic modules:

1: Socialism.
2: Capitalism.
3: Mixed economies.
4: More coming soon!

Ontological modules:

1: Materialism
2: Idealism
3: Monism
4: Pluralism
5: Nihilism
6: Dualism
7: Monistic emanationism
8: Panpsychism
Etc. more coming soon!

Cosmological modules:

1: The Big Bang gave rise to the beginning of the Universe 13.8 billion years ago.
2: God created the Universe (this is compatible with the view above, since God could had created the Big Bang or could had BEEN the Big Bang, or God could BE the Universe itself, and the Big Bang was merely the physical beginning of God, though God itself may or may not had existed prior to the Big Bang in a non-physical form).
3: Three gods have created the Universe: the Architect, the Builder, the Clay. The Architect designed the Universe in the way they liked, giving orders to the Builder as to how to create the Universe. The Clay is a god that killed itself in order for its dead body to be used as the material to create the Universe. The Builder was the one who took Clay's dead body and modelled the Universe in the way the Architect requested it. The Architect is at least partly malevolent, whereas the Builder and the Clay not necessarily so, they may had been coerced by the Architect to build a Universe where suffering exists. Theories and interpretations about this view may vary a lot, as does every idea in Pangea. Some media says that the Builder and the Clay were also malevolent, some say they had been coerced by the Architect.
4: The Universe is:
4.1: Spatially finite
4.2: Spatially infinite
4.3: Temporally finite (it had a beginning and will end).
4.4: Temporally semi-finite 1 (it had a beginning but will never end).
4.5: Temporally semi-finite 2 (it never had a beginning, it always existed, but at some point it will end).
4.6: Temporally infinite (it never had a beginning, it always existed, and will always exist).
5: Primocura. Primocura stands for "primordially monotheism - currently atheism"! It says that God used to exist before the birth of the Universe, but at some point, around 13.8 billions years ago, due to the existential dread caused by its own immortality (immortal unless this deity kills itself!), God killed itself with a gun pointed to its own head, the explosion caused by the shot was the Big Bang, which generated our Universe. Since when the Universe was born, God ceased to exist by suicide, indicating that our Universe is an atheistic one and always has been, even though God existed before the Big Bang.

Aesthetic modules:

1: European Renaissance paintings.
2: Corporate Memphis
3: Vaporwave
4: Frutiger Aero
5: Frutiger Metro
6: Stereotypical 2010's/2020's "kawaii anime" (e.g. Puniru)
7: Neubrutalism
8: Y2K
9: Emo
10: Sci-fi
11: 1950's political propaganda posters (e.g. from the USA, USSR etc.)
12: Doomer aesthetics
13: 1950's Suburbia/American Kitsch aesthetics (which seems to be a style used a lot by "USA political conservatives/patriots" on Gaian social media)
14: Glitchcore
15: Webcore
16: Cubism
17: Dreamcore
18: Weirdcore
19: Cottagecore
20: Dark Academia
21: Technozen
22: Beige minimalism
23: Modern Web Flat Design UI
24: 1930's black and white movie aesthetics
25: Steampunk
26: "Social justice" activism aesthetics (e.g. the fist in the air, drawings of megaphones etc.)
27: "USA patriot/nationalist" aesthetics (e.g. USA flags, Statue of Liberty, Benjamin Franklin etc.)
28: Goth
29: Skater
30: Trap (the music genre)
31: Images of Ancient Greek/Roman statues + images of Nietzsche, Sisyphus pushing the boulder forever, that image of that man near a cliff looking at the horizon (I'm talking about "Wanderer above the Sea of Fog" by the painter Caspar David Friedrich) etc. there's actually a lot of different images for this aesthetics (I don't know if this aesthetics has a name)
32: Average Twitter Furry OC aesthetics
33: Bubblegum pop (Barbie-like)
34: Cyberpunk
35: Las Vegas Casino
36: Fascist aesthetics
37: 8-bit gaming
38: Psychedelia
39: Ancient Chinese aesthetics
40: 1960's rock aesthetics
41: Cocomelon aesthetics
42: Graffiti aesthetics
43: Kawaiicore
44: Dark kawaii
45: Dopamine dressing
46: Conspiracy theory aesthetics (subtypes: governmental, robotic, foreign country, domestic terrorism, alien invasion/control/UFO's, cosmic illusion/trap, "Earth as a prison", simulation hypothesis, "eternal torture after death by a deity if you don't behave in a certain way" etc.)
47: Tradwife
48: E-girl
49: Biker gang aesthetics
50: Mad scientist/mad science laboratory aesthetics
51: Aztec aesthetics
52: Luna Park aesthetics
53: Circus aesthetics

Aesthetic components:

1: Images
2: Layouts
3: Colors (e.g. backgrounds, text, image color palettes)
4: Fonts
5: Lexicon
6: Tone of voice
7: Clothings
8: Body posture

Gaian ideologies

Ideologies that originate from Gaia. More coming soon. Note: concepts and ideas that a society can develop independently of knowing Gaian society, figures and events, exist in Pangea way before than they developed in Gaia. Such independent ideas are, for example, hedonism vs asceticism, forgiveness vs revenge etc. whereas, in order to make a religion based on the figure of Jesus, one would need to know the figure of Jesus, and therefore this latter kind of ideology is necessarily Gaia-based.

1: Christianity
2: Islam
3: Judaism
4: Buddhism
5: Confucianism
6: Satanism
7: New Age (although, note: when an ideology reaches Pangea, it pretty much immediately gets converted to countless variations, so many New Age ideas existed way before they did in Gaia)
8: Shintoism (necessarily heavily modified: the core concepts are taken and adapted to Pangean locations and society)
9: Hinduism (same as above)
10: Gaia-based Neo-Paganism (though it existed way before than it did in Gaia)
11: Fascism
12: National Socialism
13: Support of the imperalism of a Gaian nation
14: ???
Idk what else... stuff like "democracy", "liberalism", "authoritarianism" (in general), and others can be developed independently of Gaia, so I won't list them here.

Modular ideologies

Ideologies + aesthetics combinations

4.2.7: Internet

Internet: almost every type of content (except non-consensual stuff, stuff that was created as the result of abuse, etc. unless fictional, of course) must be available, and the "browsing experience" must be customizable. The idea is more similar to the Internet of the early 2000's, where you used to search for stuff and you got what you searched for. 2020's Gaian Internet often "force-feeds" you content through algorithms that you cannot freely customize or remove. Pangean Internet can also have "feeds" if you want them, even feeds that work the same way as Gaian ones, but they're not compulsory, and both the content and the user interface can be easily customizable. This reduces the possibility of "accidentally stumbling upon unwanted content" (unless you want to have that kind of experience, and in that case, you absolutely can!). You can have a feed if you want but you have a lot more control over it compared to the Gaian Internet. If you want to have a TikTok-like feed that gives you random content, that exists in Pangea! Pangean Internet does not forbid you from experiencing a TikTok-like feed. However, if for some reason you happen to not like it, you can edit that feed manually and specify exactly what you want to see, or even remove the feed entirely. Comments are also not necessarily as central to the Pangean Internet experience as they are on Gaia, though you can see them if you want, but they tend to be more decentralized rather than having just one comment section. You can also easily search for specific comments, or filter comments based on various characteristics. Pangean browsers are like Firefox when it comes to allowing CSS customization of websites, but it's much easier to customize websites in Pangean browsers compared to Firefox. Also, there are websites that contain CSS themes made by users, and you can easily install them. Pangea is very pro-free speech, but in a weird way that would confuse Gaians. It's very pro-free speech when it comes to accessing content and even publishing it, but it's more restrictive (though not excessively so) when it comes to social interactions with other people. Also, websites have various "light" versions, for various hardware. Every app also has "light" versions with different system requirements! Games have fan-based ports for lighter hardware (a percentage of the money goes to the original creators of that game).

Note: Pangean Internet is like a reverse Chinese Internet. Very little censorship, and the reason why you need a VPN to access Gaian websites is because Gaian countries have blocked Pangean IP's from accessing their websites, and those countries have also blocked their citizens from accessing Pangean websites, which is why a Gaian must use a VPN or TOR to access Pangean websites. The top-level domain for Pangean websites is ".pangea". Also, Pangean browsers make it very easy for people to add custom CSS themes, even created by others, it's like the extension Stylus. As for comments, since the goal of Pangea is to approximate "you have everything you want in your free time", there are no centralized comment sections, but rather, one can filter comments based on a variety of factors, even using a search engine for comments, or filtering based on the content. So it's easier to see the comments you want to see, e.g. if you dislike something and want to see comments disliking that thing, you'll see those, because there's options to see those, same thing if you like that thing. This is unlike Gaian social media, which kinda "forces" users who read comments into a certain consensus.

The Pangean Internet is much better than the Gaian Internet when it comes to (lack of) censorship as well as "game preservation" and stuff like that. Furthermore, the police won't come knocking at your door if you write something naughty online (that would be causal contamination). However, privacy-wise, the Pangean Internet is only better than the Gaian Internet if you buy the more expensive (though still affordable) "ad-free" subscription. In Pangea, there are two main "tiers" of subscription, "ad-powered" and "ad-free". If you buy the "ad-powered" version, there are tons of ads everywhere, as well as tracking scripts. Not great for privacy. If you want to browse the Internet without ads, you can buy a more expensive Internet subscription (the "ad-free subscription"), which allows you to browse the Internet without ads, and the additional money is sent to the websites to help cover the bandwidth cost. The logic is exactly the same as the other Pangean logic: you pay, and you get your wish (browsing without ads) fulfilled. However, the "ad-free" subscription is still pretty affordable, and apart from the higher price, it doesn't feel any different from buying a regular service subscription. However, even with the "ad-free" subscription (which helps cover the bandwidth costs), some websites are still locked behind a paywall since they have to pay developers. The Pangean Internet gives everyone the possibility of browsing without ads, but it costs extra money to do so. This actually matches with the overarching philosophy of Pangea: you pay to get the sensorial experience you want during your free time (in this case, browsing without ads.

It's very easy to access the Gaian Internet from Pangea, but it's very difficult (though not impossible) to access the Pangean Internet from Gaia.

List of websites (as usual, not comprehensive, it's just a list of random websites):

1: https://www.videos.pangea/ = a website to see videos, kind of like YouTube but this website also contains porn. It has options to hide or show things like "related videos", "views", "subscribers", "recommended videos", "themes" etc. The website itself does not host comments, just videos, but there are settings to import comments from elsewhere. There are no centralized comment sections, though. As for video controls, you can select the volume, resolution, play the video in a loop, apply a black and white filter, a sepia filter, flip the video horizontally or vertically, rotate the video, increase or decrease the pitch (so that a music video may sound like it was sung by a nightcore girl lol), decrease or increase the video speed, invert the colors, decorate the frame of the video with various colors and styles (e.g. dotted, dashed, solid, ridge, dotted but with hearts, stars, flowers, skulls or literally any image instead of dots), you can display shadows under the video to give the website a 3D effect, you can change the video aspect ratio (though it will look distorted... but you have that option), increase or decrease the color contrast etc. you have total control over everything!
2: https://www.audios.pangea/ = a website to hear audios. It can be music, podcasts etc. Similar to Spotify, but again, extremely customizable etc. just like with videos, you can increase or decrease the pitch or the speed to give a nightcore effect or any other effect.
3: https://www.games.pangea/ = a website that contains browser games, as well as games you can download. Some free, some not. It's like a mix of Steam and old browser games websites.
4: https://www.maps.pangea/ = a Maps website (like Google Maps, OpenStreetMap etc.) It contains maps of Pangea as well as Gaia.
5: https://www.texts.pangea/ = in this website, there are blogs, micro-blogs (like Twitter), comments about other things that you can then import from another website, encyclopedia-like articles, books, stories, forum threads, metadata about other content etc.

List of URL parameters (they work on pretty much every website in Pangea, since web development is pretty standardized in Pangea, but one can also simply use cookies and settings (found on the browser and/or on the website itself) instead of URL parameters). Of course, these won't work on "foreign" (i.e. Gaian) websites, but in Pangea one knows that Gaian websites work differently, it's not a shock. Plus, you need a VPN in Pangea to access Gaian websites, not because the Pangean government banned Gaian websites, but because Gaian governments banned Pangean IP's (usually because Pangea often creates custom front-ends for Gaian websites):

1: nojs=1: returns a page (usually lightweight) that works perfectly without Javascript. Even video websites work without Javascript (people in Gaia have various ways to download or screen capture a video anyway, so it's not a problem if one is allowed to download it). Browser settings can add this parameter by default.
2: theme=[themeid]: styles a webpage with a specific theme. Themes can be created by users and used by whoever wants to use that theme.
3: comments=[commentsectionid]: loads a specific comment section. Comment sections are considered modules, just like everything else in Pangea (online or offline), and there are multiple comment sections with different characteristics, opinions, levels of toxicity, moderation ("moderation" in Pangea generally only moves comments away to a different comment section which can be seen by any user if they want to, rather than deleting that comment so that nobody can see it) etc.
4: metrics=true: views, likes, number of subscribers etc. are turned on. There are also more granular settings where you can leave some metrics on and some off.
5: metrics=false: views, likes, number of subscribers etc. are turned off. There are also more granular settings where you can leave some metrics on and some off.
6: ramrequirement=[ram]: adapts the website to a device with said amount of RAM, removing unnecessarily heavy components if requested. E.g. "ramrequirement=256mb" adapts the website to run smoothly on a device that has 256MB of RAM.
7: pagination=numbered: the content is presented in numbered pages, if you scroll down enough, you'll have to click on "Page 2" to go forward. From Page 1 you can also click on "Page 3", "Page 4", "Page 10" etc. This can work without Javascript.
8: pagination=infinitescrolling: you can scroll endlessly, and new content always appears without any friction. This requires Javascript, because new content has to be dinamically loaded.
9: pagination=loadmore: similar to infinite scrolling, but after some time you have to click "load more" to load more, so you have the perception of how many pages of content you're seeing. This can partly work without Javascript: without Javascript, the page refreshes after clicking "load more" and you no longer see the previous content. With Javascript it works as intended: the new content loads dinamically and you can still see the old content if you scroll up.
More coming soon!

Regarding character encoding: Pangean Internet is fully compatible with Unicode, but they have their own "Extended Encoding": they have their own language's script, which is a left-to-right alphasillabary, a sort of abugida but without any inherent vowel: consonants are the primary characters, whereas vowels are just diacritic signs placed on top of the consonants. It's conceptually similar to the Devanagari script used in a Gaian nation known as "India", except that in the Pangean script, consonants have no inherent vowel: a consonant without diacritics is simply a consonant without a vowel. Other than their own script (which does not exist in Gaian Unicode because of the economic and cultural sanctions against Pangea), Pangea also has "Extended Emojis". Rather than being at the mercy of the Unicode Consortium, Pangea has its own separate character block, which is separate from Unicode in order to avoid conflict as to what character to display. The Extended Emojis do not follow paternalistic censorship: Extended Emojis contain swastikas (both the ancient symbols as well as the more recent Hakenkreuz used by the German National Socialists in the first half of the 20th century), guns of various rifles, tanks (as in, the vehicle), as well as expanded flags for more sexualities (e.g. bisexuality flag emoji, polyamory flag emoji, heterosexuality flag emoji, asexual and greysexual flag emojis, more transgender symbols, a flag specifically for homosexuality instead of the generic "rainbow" flag (which exists too in Pangea, of course) etc.). Emojis for first-level country subdivisions (current AND historical) e.g. the flag of Texas or of the province of Aceh in Indonesia, as well as first-level country subdivisions of Pangea itself, of course! Emojis for way more animals than in the Gaian Unicode, way more religions (both Pangean and Gaian) etc. the "Extended Emojis" catalogue in Pangea is massive! In Gaia there was a debate regarding the gun emoji sometime in the 2010's, and most of Gaian websites and platforms force users to see a water pistol instead of an actual gun. Even more recently, sometime in the 2020's, Elon Musk (with his obsessive "woke mind virus" rant) forces users on his website that he called "X" (i.e. Twitter) to see an emoji depicting an actual gun. In both cases, this forced assault on people's retinas differs from the Pangean philosophy: in Pangea, during work time you perform a specific role that is similar (though not identical, as you'd need infinite workers if that was the case) every day, whereas in free time, you have approximately what you want, like, the closest thing possible to that in a physical reality. And obviously, using the Internet is included in "free time", so when you use the Internet in Pangea, you gotta see what you want to see. That means, if you want to see a depiction of an actual gun as an emoji, there's a setting for that, if you want to see a water pistol as an emoji, there's a setting for that as well. But the choice is not limited to that: you can select "cartoonish (2D) vs 3D vs realistic" emojis: the cartoonish 2D emojis are like those in Gaia, the 3D emojis are 3D but still with a cartoonish graphics, whereas "realistic emojis" depict photorealistic versions of objects, e.g. a photorealistic depiction of either an actual gun or an actual water pistol. Not to mention, you can also use a "original poster" setting (and that's the default one, for pragmatic reasons): in that case, you'll see what the one who wrote that message used in the first place. If the writer of that text used an actual gun emoji, you'll see that one (with the "original poster" setting), if the writer of that text used a water pistol emoji, you'll see that one. This allows more complex communication compared to forcing everyone to use one or the other, as the writer of a message can better convey underlying vibes, tone etc. if they can choose which one to use. Of course, an Internet user can also use filters to hide the emoji itself, or even the entire string of text if it includes that emoji. The choice of what goes in someone's eyes and ears while using the Internet is up to who has those specific eyes or ears: namely, oneself. In Pangea there's also a fun quirky option that you can set: "emoji sounds", and when you click on an emoji, it makes a specific sound related to that emoji. And of course, the sound itself is customizable, too!

Ads, privacy and DRM

In Pangea, you can buy a cheaper "ad-powered" Internet subscription, and in that case, you see tons of ads, and there are tracking scripts. Those ads are inescapable, even if you use a text-only browser, you'll see text ads every few paragraphs while you're reading. Using an extremely old, text-only device won't save you from the ads. So, the "ad-powered" Internet subscription is not recommended, since it's a terrible experience (though as with everything, there is media in Pangea that explicitly promotes using the "ad-powered" Internet and claims that the ad-free subscription is for "lazy" or "spoiled" people and that it's good to experience the friction of ads). However, in Pangea, you can buy a more expensive (though still very affordable) Internet subscription, the "ad-free" subscription. If you buy the "ad-free" subscription, you can browse the Internet without ever seeing a single ad. The additional money goes to the websites you visited, compensating them for the bandwidth cost. If you buy the ad-free subscription, there are no tracking script, offering a more privacy-friendly experience. As for DRM, it exists in Pangea but there's a requirement: all customers must be able to pay to remove the DRM. Mandatory DRM that cannot be removed through payment is forbidden in Pangea. This is done due to the modular copyright, which allows everyone to download media in Pangea and create derivatives of it, although of course you can't share that derivative for free, and if you sell it, an amount of money equal to the value of the media must go to the original creator. Unlike in Gaia, in Pangea, if you pay, you can simply right click on a video and click "Save Video" and you can download it. Because of that, video websites can work perfectly even without Javascript! However, if you did not pay for the rights to download that video, if you try to load a video website without Javascript, instead of the video you get a button saying "No-JS copyrighted video stream is not available for the free tier. Please upgrade to watch or download this video without Javascript". Non-copyrighted videos, however, can be watched and downloaded without Javascript, unlike in Gaia, which uses DRM even for non-copyrighted videos.

Internet content

All media, cartoons, movies, games, books, music etc. are available on the Pangean Internet, though you often have to pay for them, like you do on Steam on the Gaian Internet.

4.3: Utilities

1: Car repairer: if your car is broken, you can bring it to a car repairer to fix your car!
2: Real time human translator (the work still exists but is slowly being replaced by AI as of mid-2020's): you pay someone to translate a conversation in real time between you and another person who speaks a different language.
3: Public transport (buses, taxis, trains etc.)
4: Pangea still has phone booths in cities. This is done for mainly two reasons: aesthetics (some people may like seeing phone booths), and functionality (some people may decide to not own a mobile phone, and they should still be able to phone people). There are thematic areas entirely dedicated to phone booths. Phone booths also exist in the Tranzit but they're hidden through geometry and angles so that people who hate seeing phone booths won't see them.

4.4: Physical products

1: Plushies of pretty much anything you can think of
1.1: Fetish plushies of various things, including monster-girls etc. may also be a hybrid plushie/sex-toy.
1.2: Alien plushies
1.3: Bear plushies
1.4: Dog plushies
1.5: Cat plushies
1.6: Horror plushies
1.7: Plushies from various media e.g. Vocaloid plushies
1.8: Plushies of various sizes, even very small or very large.
1.9: Plushies that you can microwave and they keep the warmth for a while.
2: Any clothing you want e.g. you can dress as a penguin, you can wear whatever you want, and clothing shops have *lots* of stuff, anything you want!
3: An automatic fruit juice extractor: you put the fruit (without the peel if it's not edible and/or if you don't want the peel juice, of course!) inside and it extracts as much juice as possible! E.g. you put an orange in there (without the peel, of course) and you get the juice, no manual work needed!
4: A toy about a hand that does the middle finger and comes out of a toilet, and can reproduce "fuck you" in various languages by pressing a button on its remote (that contains various flags that represent languages).
5: Books of the Bible and the Quran (and other religious/philosophical books) with illustrations in every aesthetic, including those generally not associated with religion and philosophy, like Corporate Memphis and anime style. A Quran with illustrations would be haram due to iconography, but it wouldn't contradict the values of Pangea, which is basically "(almost) everything you can think of is available to obtain and/or experience in your free time, as there is at least one worker whose job is to fulfill that specific type of wish". In case of physical items or piece of media, there is at least one person whose job is to produce that, in case of "live" services (e.g. having sex with a sex worker, going to the restaurant, going to the cinema, going to the dentist or any other doctor, paying a plumber to fix the broken pipes in your house, live speeches and conferences, theater etc.), there is at least one person whose job is to provide that experience. This disregards the internal coherence of any ideology outside of the Pangean values (most importantly, maximization of the alpha): Islam is against iconography, and yet such book (Quran with illustrations) must exist, by definition, due to the values of Pangea. However, the role of the government (and schools) is to provide context, that's why in Pangean media there are often "trigger warnings" and the like, or additional context. Of course, especially in digital media, such trigger warnings can be removed or modified by the user, because everyone has different sensibilities and it wouldn't make sense to have a "one size fits all" approach to that. In the case of a Quran with illustrations, the context provided by the government (perhaps on the back of the book, so a buyer can know the important information) would be something like "iconography is forbidden in Islam: what you're reading is a customized product that conflicts with Islamic principles. By buying this book you confirm that you understand this. If you want a version of the Quran that is in line with Islamic principles, please buy one without illustrations". By adding context, the government provides important relevant informations. This also means that in social media, posts have the "fact-check" information below, like social media used to have a few years ago (and probably have now, but I generally don't use social media so I can't confirm 100%). Some people have called it, as well as trigger warnings, "censorship" but I completely disagree: the content is fully available, there's just context added on it. Whether or not you agree with the context provided is a different matter, but the content is fully available. Plus, in Pangea, you can turn the fact-checking off if you find it annoying or distracting, but you can always turn it back on in case you need the "official truth" on a post. In a society like Pangea, where pretty much everything and its opposite is available to buy, context provided by an "official" source is very important, otherwise you'd literally have no idea if something you read on the Internet or on books is true or not! And this, by the way, as mentioned before, is how the Pangean government controls information. Not through censorship but through saturation of information. That is, if everything and its opposite is said by someone, one cannot know what is true and what is not true. It's possible (perhaps likely) that people won't care, and that they'll just believe in stuff that confirms their biases, but at least the government provides their truth, in case someone wants it. It also provides what I call "context" (e.g. fact-checking and trigger warnings, but the content itself remains fully available to experience). However, in case of fact-checking and trigger warnings online, those can be turned off if one wants that, so it won't distract from the "browsing experience". They can be turned on and off as one wishes, and trigger warnings can even be customized e.g. if one is more sensitive to certain things and not others, then trigger warnings can be customized. It's a modular thing, of course. Fact-checking can be customized but only in this manner: you can specify what ideology you follow, e.g. Christianity, Islam, Stoicism, whatever... and it can give you information about content related to that ideology, e.g. if that stuff is allowed in that ideology or not. Before advanced AI, simple keyword-based algorithms could be used, for instance, if a post contained "beer" and one used the option of ideological fact-checking saying one was Christian or a Muslim, then it could display a message saying "Context: alcohol is forbidden in the worldview you have selected" or something along those lines. With a huge amount of "noisy" information, Pangea "labels" content in order for it to be found more effectively. It's how search engines used to work in the 2000's, before SEO spam, sponsored results and the like.
6: A Sudoku with hentai illustrations.
7: Variation of the above (it's pretty fun): A Sudoku with three different difficulties: easy, medium and hard. In the easy ones, the illustrations are normal anime characters (they can be male, female, something more ambiguous, furries, aliens etc. depending on the tastes, after all, Pangea can fulfill pretty much any desire), in the medium ones, the illustrations are ecchi (not sexually explicit, but "teasing"), whereas in the hard ones, the illustrations are hentai (sexually explicit).
8: A small lavender-scented plushie that you can warm up in the microwave oven and it stays warm for a while (pssst... they exist in Gaia, too, I have one!)
9: Toilet paper (gotta list normal stuff too, you know), of various colors, and some of it even has drawings on it (even though that's more expensive).
10: Soap.
11: Tooth paste, of various tastes, even sour-lemon taste, for those who prefer sour tastes! Sweet toothpaste, spicy toothpaste etc.
12: Tooth brushes of various colors, illustrations, and to some extent shapes (though some may be more uncomfortable to hold).
13: Shampoos of different aromas, different package shapes, color (both of the package and the shampoo itself), characteristics, illustrations (including anime-style illustrations e.g. anime characters washing their hair, naked or not).
14: Blanket heaters.
15: Heaters that can produce not only warmth but also light (e.g. with a fake fire animation), and static sounds (e.g. from a fan inside the heater).
16: Air conditioning, also of different colors, illustrations, shapes, and even software e.g. air conditioners that have a triangular remote that resembles Bill Cipher from Gravity Falls: various types of sounds when you press a button (the buttons themselves can have lots of different colors, shapes and aesthetics): the temperature and settings may be displayed in various colors and fonts, etc.
17: Furniture of various aesthetics (a lot of different aesthetics)!
18: Card games with hentai (or IRL pornographic) illustrations: e.g. the King and the Queen are naked and attractive.
19: A disturbing horror doll that makes creepy laughs and creepy sounds.
20: A mattress.
20.1: Shaped like a:
20.1.1: Rectangle
20.1.2: Square
20.1.3: Circle
20.1.3.1: Decorated like a hamburger.
21: A lava lamp
22: A trampoline, which you can then place somewhere either outdoors or indoors and jump on it! It can come with various colors and decorations (just like pretty much anything in Pangea)!
23: An RGB lamp, the remote lets you pick between 4,096 different colors as a hexadecimal RGB values (e.g. "FFF" is white, "FF0" is yellow, "F00" is red, "F0F" is magenta, "0FF" is cyan, "000" is black (and the light turns off if you select that, "F80" is orange, etc.)

4.4.1: Clothings

1: T-shirts.
2: Pants
3: Underwear
4: Bra
5: Shoes
6: Hats
7: Gloves
8: Scarves
9: Headscarves
10: Jackets
11: Shorts
12: Socks

Colors, patterns and decorations (just like anything else in Pangea, multiple things can be combined with each other, of course):

1: Colors.
1.1: Black
1.2: Grey
1.3: White
1.4: Red
1.5: Green
1.6: Blue
1.7: Cyan
1.8: Magenta
1.9: Yellow
1.10: Orange
1.11: Chartreuse
2: Patterns.
2.1: Dotted
2.2: Dashed
2.3: Striped
2.4: Chevron
2.5: Serpentine stripes
3: Decorations.
3.1: Hearts
3.2: Stars
3.3: Skulls
3.4: Smiley faces
3.5: Rainbows
3.6: Animals or animal-like creatures
3.6.1: Cute cartoonish animals.
3.6.2: Realistic animals
3.6.3: Disturbing/horror animals
3.7: Cartoon characters

Miscellaneous interesting combinations (obviously, nowhere near comprehensive):

1: A cyan t-shirt with a smiling cartoonish anthropomorphized Sun near the center, coupled with green long pants with leaves and grass drawn on them.
More coming soon.
2: A penguin sweater, and the hood has penguin eyes and beak drawn on it.

4.8: Food

Note: Pangea is not a vegetarian country. Foods of all kinds is available and easy to buy, including all sorts of meat (except human meat). You can buy dog meat, cat meat, scorpions, bugs and so on, but also chicken, pork, and so on. Other than meat, there's also v-meat of all kinds: vegan alternatives to meat that have a very similar taste.

1: Lemon juice
2: Lytchee juice
3: Sour candies (with varying degrees of sourness)
4: Rice with curry
5: All sorts of snacks (e.g. Tortillas, of various tastes e.g. chili, curry, vinegar chips etc. anything)
6: Street food exists in at least one street per settlement (that street is NOT part of the Tranzit, of course!).
7: Pig meat with disturbing gore art drawn on the package, art depicting pigs brutally killed and bleeding. Since this art is disturbing and if someone doesn't want to see it they should be able to not see it, perhaps there are dedicated sections with disturbing illustrations in dedicated sections of the supermarket.
8: Regular fruit and vegetables, e.g. lemons, oranges, tangerines, tomatoes, zucchini, potatoes, bananas, strawberries, cherries, watermelons, grapes, melons, pears, apples, cabbage, broccoli, pineapple, etc.
9: Meat and v-meat (vegan meat) of all kinds, including the equivalents of dog meat, cat meat, snakes, bugs, scorpions, crocodiles etc. and foods that contain it, e.g. hamburgers, kebab, cheeseburgers, etc.
10: "Cola" (not necessarily Coca-Cola, even just Cola made by Pangean brands) of various tastes: standard, lemon, cherry, sour, super sour, watermelon, strawberry, alcoholic cola, cola with cocaine inside of it (it's still legal and sold in Pangea!) etc.
11: Udon noodles with vegetables, or with vegetables and eggs.
12: V-fish, as well as food that contains it, e.g. v-fish and chips, v-fish sticks, v-fish burgers!
13: Potatoes baked in the oven, and then you can add salt, oil, any sauce you want, anything else you want! E.g. rice with curry and potatoes!
14: Chocolate of various kinds, as well as chocolate cookies.
15: Halal, kosher, vegetarian, vegan foods, as well as foods for people who have allergies e.g. foods without gluten.
16: "Iblis Cuisine": a food brand that sells food that is specifically haram: pork, meat from animals that were not slaughtered in a halal way, alcohol, insects, reptiles etc. and those foods are packaged with illustrations of demons, Jinn etc. of course, the aesthetics can vary, for example there can be demons with kawaii aesthetics illustrated with it, demons with vaporwave aesthetics etc. all aesthetics. And of course, not all such foods are packaged as "Iblis Cuisine": pork can be packaged normally or even without any illustration at all. The "Iblis Cuisine" brand is specifically intended for people who find it important to consume haram foods, for various reasons. Of course, anyone who wants to buy it can buy it, eh.
17: Illuminati Chocolate Cookies: triangular shaped chocolate cookies. The lower part is the cookie, the upper part is mostly chocolate, with an eye shaped white part made of milk, and in the center of that eye-shaped milk part there's a brown chocolate dot that represents the pupil.
18: Fruit juice made of 90% orange juice and 10% lemon juice. It's quite sour, very tasty.
19: Chocolate with cannabis inside of it.
20: A hamburger with dog meat, barbeque sauce, lettuce and tomatoes.

Each food can have various different illustrations written on the package, e.g. lemon juice with an anime girl drawn on it, and she wears a bra with two lemons drawn on her bra! Or burritos with Far West aesthetics drawings on the package! Liquid (e.g. water, juice, alcohol etc.) containers can have different shapes and colors, too! They can range from transparent all the way to opaque, and different colors, and different art drawn on the container!

4.8.1: Fruit and vegetables

>Some foods (e.g. tomatoes) are unclear whether or not they're fruit or vegetables, and there are, as with every other topic, fierce debates on the matter, even with insults (that's media you can buy/watch, or TV shows about it, where the debatants insult each other, saying for example "tomatard" or something like that). Of course, you can't just approach a random stranger and insult them, that's harassment, those insults I mentioned are simply part of the tomato debate media. Some media says that because you can't tell whether tomatoes are fruit or vegetables, you shouldn't eat them, whereas others say it's ok to eat tomatoes. Anyway, here's a list of fruit and vegetables:

1: Lemons
2: oranges
3: tangerines
4: tomatoes
5: zucchini
6: potatoes
7: bananas
8: strawberries
9: cherries
10: watermelons
11: grapes
12: melons
13: pears
14: apples
15: cabbage
16: broccoli
17: pineapple

5: Economy

Pangean economy is neither communist or capitalist, it's a partly planned economy contrived with the specific purpose of maximizing the alpha. Sometimes people choose their jobs, sometimes not, it depends. If there is a deficit of services or products due to a lack of workers, the Pangean government can assign jobs to some people to fix the deficit. That's called a needs-based conscription, and it's similar to military service in Gaia. However, a civilian can NEVER be asked to perform extreme tasks (such as risking one's life going to war), those are reserved to high ranking military members only! There are many ways to maximize the alpha, and the Pangean government tries its best to do so by minimizing suffering, unpleasantness and other negative things. There is a hierarchy of preferences in terms of workers. Matchers are technically on the top of the hierarchy, but since they are unreliable, it's necessary that there are regular workers to do that job as well. Here's the hierarchy, ordered from most preferred to least preferred:

1: Workers who specifically want to do that job
2: Workers who don't specifically want to do that job but find it meaningful anyway.
3: Workers who don't mind that job.
4: Workers who don't like that job but their negative mental states due to that job are minimal.
5: Workers who get moderately negative mental states from their job.
6: Workers who feel very stressed from their job.

Note that "minimizing the unpleasant mental states" does NOT mean "little suffering", not even "acceptable level of suffering", it just means that, among all the possible socio-economic configurations that maximize the alpha, the Pangean government tries to implement the one that causes the least suffering among those. The maximization of the alpha is still the highest priority, and it overrides anything else. Capitalism would cause "enshittification", planned obsolescence, dark patterns in user interfaces, and other things that would decrease the alpha significantly. Communism, on the other hand, with its forced equality, would also decrease the alpha by making sure nobody is left behind, dragging everyone else down as well. There is economic inequality in Pangea but there's also a minimum wage. The minimum wage is not necessarily given by the employer, it can also be given by the government, it depends, but the important thing is that each individual has at least an amount of money not only for basic necessities but also for basic entertainment as well. In capitalism, there's no floor and no ceiling (in terms of amount of money, or more correctly: purchase power), in communism, the floor is equal to the ceiling, in Pangea, there is a floor but no ceiling. However, everyone is forced to work in Pangea, and the government can assign jobs. The Pangean economy has elements that superficially resemble capitalism or socialism, but it's actually neither, and the end goal is neither maximization of profit nor maximization of economic equality, but rather, the maximization of the alpha: the variety of products and services available.

6: Thematic areas

7: Fun facts about Pangea

In no particular order

1: in Pangea, gay marriage is legal, as well as polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry).

2: There are relatively large nudist sections of cities (though of course very small in proportion to the actual city itself), where people (18+ only) can go, and they can be naked: there are cinemas, restaurants etc. in nudist sections, just like in "standard" sections. Important rule: it is not allowed for nudist sections to have things that can only be experienced there! Everything that can be experienced in nudist sections (except for nudity itself, of course) must be able to be experienced in standard sections as well! Of course, there are also plenty of nudist beaches, since Pangea is an island.

3: Sex work is legal and regulated (not just sex but also all kinds of fetishes are available to be experienced). All drugs (even hard ones) are legal and regulated. Copyright exists but is different from that of Gaia. Some Gaian countries (e.g. Germany) have legalized sex work and have not been subject by any sanctions by Gaia as a whole, so sex work is allowed in Gaia: each Gaian country can decide about sex work. However, regarding drugs and modular copyright, those are banned by Gaia as a whole (by the UNG: United Nations of Gaia). So, Pangean laws are different from Gaian laws, which can make the relationship between the two difficult.

4: Pangea is very pro-gun, like the USA (it logically results from the idea behind this ideology... if a customer wants a gun... they must be able to get it, and it must not be fake, since if it is, then the sensorial experience of firing (e.g. at a mannequin) is not fulfilled). Even weapons like molotovs, rifles etc. are legal and sold in stores. Euthanasia is legal, though they make several checks when someone requests it, since it's such a serious decision.

5: It's illegal for an employer to contact someone for work-related reasons after they have finished their work hours, as that's considered "overreach", and a violation of the "sacredness" of free time (which is literally a core part of the Pangean values!). All work-related communication must be done within the work hours.

6: As for discrimination, it's allowed in certain cases but not allowed on others. Here's a list:

• Refusing service to a customer is allowed if and only if the customer can have that service, of a comparable quality (note: comparable quality means that the product/service is pretty much undistinguishable from the one one is discriminated from... if it can be distinguished then it's not comparable quality, even if it's "good"), from another worker in an accessible radius (e.g. 15/30 minutes of walking... 15 minutes if it's an essential service, 30 minutes if it's superfluous... perhaps one hour at most if it's something super specific). For instance, years ago on the Gaian Internet there was an interesting debate regarding whether or not a conservative Christian baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay couple's marriage. As expected, some Gaians said they should be forced to bake the cake, some Gaians said they shouldn't be forced to bake the cake. A variation of opinions must be expected from Pangeans as well, but in terms of law, in Pangea that baker would be forced to bake that cake if and only if the said customers (i.e. the gay couple) were unable to get the cake they requested, of a comparable quality (meaning, undistinguishable from the cake of the conservative Christian baker) of that they would have gotten from that baker, somewhere else. In that case, the baker would be considered to have a monopoly in that area, and monopolies are subject to different rules in Pangea and they are not allowed to discriminate like that. If the couple were able to get the cake somewhere else, then that baker would not be a monopoly, and would be allowed to discriminate against that couple. In Pangea, it's a preferable situation to not have the monopoly: if a conservative Christian is allowed to discriminate against e.g. gay couples and not bake a cake for their marriage, the Delta (or perhaps, the weak causal contamination) of the baker is lower and therefore it's better, and the couple wouldn't be disadvantaged, because they can get an undistinguishable cake somewhere else: the alpha (the sum of desires that workers as a group can satisfy) remains as high as possible. Now, you may think the couple may waste their time in a situation like that, but that's not the case. In Pangea, usually the "starting point" in one's free time is an information center, so, for instance, a gay couple can ask to the information provider "where can we get a cake for our marriage?", and the informant provides that information (and it's relatively cheap, too, affordable). Without the information center, Pangea cities are difficult to navigate, anyway. Due to its structure, the problem of discrimination is not harmful. Information centers are kind of like search engines, but for a physical reality (a town/city) rather than for a virtual one like the Internet.
• Employment, discriminatory firing. In terms of employment, firing etc. it's not allowed to refuse employment or fire someone for their ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc. not even for their political viewpoint! For instance, if someone expresses an opinion in their free time, they cannot be fired or refuse employment for that! That would be an asynchronicity and it's not allowed in Pangea! The Delta must remain as low as possible!
• Discrimination in interactions between customers: interactions between customers are based on consent and there can be freedom of association, so if you don't want to be friends with someone for any reason (e.g. you're racist and don't want to be friends with someone based on their ethnciity) that's perfectly allowed. People in their free time have no obligation to be friends with anyone if they don't want to: that would be a job, more specifically, "professional companion". Job-like behaviors are not required from people in their free time.
• Discriminatory speech/opinions. Perfectly allowed to be expressed, as long as you're not forcing anyone to listen to them (that would be a non-consensual conversation). In any case, there are people whose job is to listen to an opinion. Not necessarily to any opinion, but for each opinion, there is at least one worker whose job is to listen to that type of opinion, you can pay and they'll listen to that opinion, and maybe even give you some interesting concepts to consider and to further develop your views (even if they're horrible, but there's no judgement of that... unless you want to be judged, of course). Of course, if your views involve activities that are illegal in Pangea, you'll be provided "context" where you're reminded that those things are illegal, but after that, there are pretty much no limits in that person listening to you or giving you more interesting ideas that you can consider, even if those ideas involve illegal activities and reinforce your biases. After all, you were reminded that certain things are illegal in Pangea, so if you go ahead and do those things anyway, you cannot use "I didn't know it was illegal!" as an excuse! There will be repercussions, so it's better to just limit yourself in saying those things and don't do anything further than just saying them. In any case, you can also pay to enter clubs where people think in ways similar to you, and if no person organically thinks like you do, there will be people whose job is to provide a sense of community where they'll act as if they agreed with you. It's an act, but those workers are selected on the basis that their actual opinions are (if possible) not too dissimilar from the ones they're acting, so the "f(r)iction" is reduced (even if not completely eliminated).

7: Among other things, here are some things that are illegal in Pangea (except under VERY specific circumstances, such as with Matchers or as a performance act): murder, rape, torture, drunk driving, theft, asynchronicities etc. there is no death penalty in Pangea, and the maximum prison sentence is 40 years. Prisons have standards and prisoners cannot be tortured nor receive humiliating, abusive or degrading treatments. The idea behind prison in Pangea is that among all situaions that do lead to a low crime rate, the situation with the least suffering for the prisoners must be selected. This does not mean "zero suffering" or "little suffering", it just means that among all methods that do work to keep a low crime rate, the one with the least suffering for the prisoners is selected, that's it. Prisons are an immoral part of any society, including Pangea, and Pangea simply sees prisons as something that has the function of keeping a low crime rate when everything else fails. Sadism or revenge are not what drives the existence of Pangean prisons.

8: Regarding blood donations: it is guaranteed, for people who need blood transfusions, that there's always enough blood available for them. The blood is taken from doctors: the first step is to search for volunteers among doctors, and in practice (de-facto), there are always enough volunteers among doctors. However, de-jure (by law), if no doctor volunteers, then the second step is to search for volunteers among the population in general. If even that second step fails, then some doctors will be coerced into donating their blood, prioritizing those who have a stronger, more resilient body and mind. A very important thing is that a doctor must NEVER be selected based on what they did in their free time, as that would be an asynchronicity: the method of selection must be 100% transparent and very detailed. By law, a non-doctor can NEVER be coerced into donating their blood: if someone who is a plumber, a baker, a videogame player, a professional companion, or some job like that were to be coerced into donating their blood, it'd be an activity that is way too dissonant compared to their job, and their delta would be considered unacceptably high. In practice, doctors understand how things work, and there are always more than enough volunteers to meet the needs for people who need blood transfusions.

9: The Pangean government, or even "officially trusted agencies" respond to every possible claim, such as: "The sky is Green", but not only that one, but to literally every statement, providing their official truth, like, the "official truth" to the statement "the sky is green" is something along the lines of "No, the sky on Earth is not green. It's blue during clear daytime skies, grey if there are clouds, black at night, and in some cases orange or purple-ish during sunsets and/or sandstorms. The sky on the other planets of the Solar Systems are not green either, but some exoplanets may have a green sky.". Responding to every possible statement is needed to provide official truth to citizens, since the information landscape of Pangea can be described as literally "everything and its opposite". Without the government's official truth, it would be impossible to know anything other than what one learns from one's direct sensorial experiences, revealing something about epistemology.

10: There are two free days (days without any work at all), and if for one is important that a day is free e.g. if someone considers Saturday a "free day", or "day of rest", or any type of day where one ought not to work, that request is usually granted. However, for each day, only about 50% of the population can have it as a free day simultaneously. That means, if for example the percentage of people whose one of their free days is Saturday exceeds that percentage, then the people who find it the least important will have that free day changed to another day (e.g. Monday), whereas the people who find it religiously important that Saturday should be a non-work day will take priority. However, for any given day, the percentage of people who has a non-work day in that day can never exceed 50%. It cannot be the case that the Pangean society as a whole stops working uniformly a specific day: the society would collapse. The same reasoning goes for paid holidays: it's about 36 days per year, and the worker can usually decide them, but it still remains the case that at least 50% of total workers should work in that day. If a certain period for holidays is excessively popular, then the people who find it the least important will have their holiday period moved slightly. As for pauses, the total amoung of pause is about one or two hours per day, and the moment of the pause can be decided by the worker for any reason e.g. if one considers it important to pray during certain hours, that request is always granted, as long as the total amount of pause does not exceed two hours... behavior during pause is not regulated by the "low delta", only actual work is.

11: Just because for every thinkable opinion or idea there's media promoting it, that does not mean that people actually believe in all that stuff! That media exists because the system demands maximum variety in services and products! Furthermore, if someone buys a media that promotes a certain opinion, it does not necessarily mean they agree with that media: it could also be that they bought that media out of curiosity, boredom, or even wanting to feel a sensation of 'what the hell am I reading?' and laughing or even use that media as 'food for thought'. The reasons for buying media that promotes a certain opinion or ideology can vary, it doesn't necessarily imply agreement, though of course one can also buy media just because they agree and want to feel validated... again, the reasons can vary! However, even if just one person (or even nobody!) has a certain belief, one can not only buy the media promoting that idea, but pay to enter a "community" consisting of workers whose job is to provide a sense of "community" surrounding unusual beliefs, and the particular belief can be requested on demand. This can provide a feeling that for every belief, there's a community about it, even though that's just workers providing a service, and those workers themselves may not actually hold that belief, they just do it to provide a "sense of community". If there are people who actually hold a particular belief, then in addition to interacting with workers, one can expect interactions with "matchers" (other people in their free time who consensually interact with you) who actually hold that belief, though there's absolutely no guarantee: even if those people exist, they can refuse to interact with you for any reason, or even if no reason at all. In any case, workers are always available to interact with, no matter the beliefs/ideology you have requested. For each belief/ideology you may think of, there is a group of at least a few workers within an accessible distance whose job is to provide a "sense of community" for that belief/ideology.

12: Protests are only allowed in designated areas (visually isolated from those who don't want to see them) and it costs money to buy a ticket to be allowed to protest.

13: Incest is legal in Pangea (as long as it's between consenting adults). Furthermore, not just with "matchers", but let's say your sibling or cousin or even your mom is a sex worker: you can legally buy a sex session with them.

14: There is a minor loophole due to modular copyright, that consists in removing some features from videogames in order to decrease its price. For instance, someone may remove the vanish cap in Super Mario 64 to slightly decrease its price. The vanish cap in Super Mario 64 is only needed for four stars: "Eye to eye in the secret room" (Big Boo's Haunt), "Collect the caps" (Dire Dire Docks), "Into the Igloo" (Snowman's Land), and "Quick Race Through Downtown" (Wet-Dry World). IN Pangea, there are versions of Super Mario 64 that are identical to the original except that there is no vanish cap, and the stars that originally required the vanish cap in the original version of the game required that cap simply because you needed to enter into a place with the vanish cap, otherwise the game prevents you from entering in those places. However, in this modified version of the game, all those places are left open, so you can enter there without the vanish cap. This version of the game costs slightly less than the original, because one module, namely, the vanish cap, is absent from this version of the game, therefore slightly decreasing the price of the game (which in Pangea is calculated as the sum of all modules used). However, since this modder added nothing new to the game, 100% of the money of each copy goes to, uh... Nintendo I guess (assuming Nintendo does business with Pangea, which is currently unclear if they do... either scenario is plausible, after all)). In Pangea one can also sell "demos" of a game, e.g. a version of Super Mario 64 where only the first two levels (Bomb-Omb Battlefield and Whomp's Fortress) are available, making it much cheaper than the original game. However, this one is not a loophole, because in order to buy all the levels, the price is identical (or slightly superior, since in each demo there's textures, audio and the physics engine) to that one should spent with the entire game. There are also some versions of games without textures, where the textures are replaced by solid monochromatic colors. It looks terrible, but the resulting copy of the game is cheaper than the original, since the textures are absent. This is how modular copyright works: the price of each copy is equal to the sum of all modules within it, and the money of each module will entirely go to the creator(s) of said module.

15: Because in Pangea, since antiquity (at the very least since 500 B.C.), there has been the "saturation of worldviews", any modern worldview (with the sole exception of those based on a Gaian individual where such worldview was immediately created in Gaia, leaving no time for Pangeans to create their own worldview based on that individual), e.g. Wicca, New Age, Liberalism, psychiatry, antipsychiatry, hippie worldview, flat earth theory, big bang theory, "wokeism", "antiwokeism", Satanism, religions based on extraterrestrial beings etc. are simply ancient Pangean worldviews/religions brought to Gaia in the recent times. They're nothing new. Likewise, Christianity-like and Islam-like religions existed in Pangea way before Christianity and Islam existed in Gaia. Of course, in Pangea they did not attach those views to figures like Jesus Christ or Prophet Muhammad, since they were not born yet, but the general structure (i.e. a deity that prescribes pretty much the same rules as Christianity and claims to be the only deity that exists, and whoever disobeys will be tortured forever after they die, and then a human is born from that god and is killed/sacrificed to benefit humankind in some way) already existed in Pangea, as well as countless variations of it, and criticisms, mockery and opposition of that idea (just like every idea), at the very least 500 years before Christianity appeared in Gaia. Of course, since at the time it was unlikely that Pangea and Gaia interacted with each other, those ideas may have developed independently from each other. However, some media in Pangea claims that Pangea and Gaia interated with each other and that Christianity and Islam were simply adapted versions of ancient Pangean religions.

8: Relationship with Gaia (work in progress, first draft, may change eventually as ideas become more internally coherent)

Possible starting ideas (may or may not be changed eventually): travel to Pangea is either illegal or a grey area since the mid-20th century due to Pangea being considered a narco-state, but de-facto often still occurs for tourism, through indirect means e.g. travelling from Colombia, the Cayman Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Greenland, some islands in the Indian Ocean etc. which allow travel to Pangea... travelling directly from countries such as the USA, UK, Europe, Australia etc. is not allowed. Demicronia is subject to economic sanctions from a large part (though not all) of Gaia for a few reasons: all drugs are legal there, as well as "copyright infringement". Note that it's not the intention of the Pangean government to infringe on copyright: Pangea contains all sorts of fan-arts (due to maximing the alpha), but the copyright system of Gaia does not officially allow that. However, since large companies in Gaia can break Gaian laws, they do business with Pangea anyway because otherwise, Pangea would still create those fan-arts, and Gaian companies would get no money from that. Since Gaian companies prioritize profit over anything else, with the same zeal that Pangea has in maximizing the alpha, doing business with Pangean artists is de-jure illegal (according to UNG (United Nations of Gaia) laws) but de-facto never enforced.

Another fascinating idea is that, since Pangean media contains pretty much everything, Gaian propaganda can very easily use "lie by omission" when saying negative things about Pangea. Here's a genius example: Pangean media contains pretty much everything, including (fictional) "Terrorist Threat" content. There's a "context warning" saying it's fictional and purely for entertainment and that it should not be taken seriously. Basically, for every major location and spot of interest, Pangean media mass produces fictional (for entertainment, clearly labelled as such) "Terrorist Threat Content", in every aesthetic imaginable. For every year, method of terrorism (bombing, starting fires, mass shootings, bioweapon, alien weaponry, magical powers), and spot of interest, this content is produced. So, there is a lot of that content. In the year 2000, that content was produced as usual, just like every other idea (it's still produced today, always has been, always will be). (Fictional) terrorist threats on the Eiffel Tower in 2001 by bombing it, on the Colosseum by making use of advanced technologies that aliens gave to the Pangean government as a gift etc. due to the sheer variety and quantity of such content, some of that content will eventually end up being true, though the Pangean government is never involved, it's simply a coincidence, or rather, a statistical near-certainty: if you make millions of different statements about the future, there's a very high chance that at least one of them will become true. Or rather, a more correct explanation is that if any terrorist attack occurs, there's a very high chance that, due to the sheer variety of content, that attack was described in at least one of the Pangean media that was created prior to that attack. So, among the fictional "Terrorist Threat" content that was created in the year 2000, there were at least some (differing on aesthetics, tone etc.) that said that "the Pangean military will attack the Twin Towers in New York City sometime in 2001". This was great ammunition for "western" Gaian governments, which (in this alternative timeline that includes Pangea) used that to paint Pangea as an enemy, even though the Pangean government was not involved at all. The Pangean government issued a "context note" to the USA government, explaining that the content was fictional, and that this type of content is created for pretty much all spots of interest (over 20,000 locations, cities and more!) both in Pangea and in Gaia, for all types of weapons and methods (realistic, plausible, futuristic/sci-fi, magical/fantasy etc.), for all years, with all aesthetics and with all attitudes about such threat e.g. some content is pro-attack (proud), some is pro-attack but with a more "ethical" tone (we need to do this for... [plausible sounding reasons]), anti-attack ("the terrorists will attack [place], and it's terrible! We must stop them!") etc. The Pangean government explained to the US government that because of the extreme variety of such content, there's a very high chance that if any terrorist attack actually occurs, at least one of these fictional contents existed that described an attack on such place, and that's simply a normal statistical phenomenon caused by the extreme variety of "predictions". The Pangean government further explains that all this content is fictional and for entertainment purposes only, explains that if there's a genuine terrorist threat, the Pangean government will give a context note saying that it's not fictional and that the Pangean military will take care of the situation. The Pangean government explains all that to the US government and (truthfully) denies any involvement with the 2001 attacks. However, the US government knows very well how the Pangean media works, and it's not interested in reaching the truth but rather, manipulating the truth (by omission, which is extremely easy to do since the Pangean media contains everything... just select what you like and remove the "fictional" label... those who do not know how Pangean entertainment works will be very easily misled), and manipulating citizens into believing Pangea is the enemy, and using all ammunition possible: and the Pangean entertainment industry provides a pretty much unlimited amount of ammunition. Anti-USA propaganda (which exists in Pangea alongside pro-USA propaganda and more nuanced or even neutral descriptions of the USA... even anti-Pangea propaganda exists in Pangea!) is reported in the USA, and used as even more ammunition to paint Pangea as an enemy. This idea really makes the relationship between Gaia and Pangea incredibly intriguing, and is the fuel for a lot more ideas that will expand the lore of this alternative world! I'll work more on this eventually!

One of the reason why Gaian countries (e.g. the USA) don't invade Pangea is because Pangea has the most powerful military in the wold, and it has been that way at least for 2000 years. Gaian countries know that attacking Pangea won't end well. That is why Pangea breaks international laws. Gaian countries impose sanctions on Pangea, but Pangea is very self-sufficient, plus they get all the media from Gaia somehow and translate that into the Pangean language. The effect that it has, however, is that it's difficult (though not impossible) to access Pangean media from Gaia, as you not only need to use a VPN but a special browser called TPR, The Pangean Router, which is difficult to obtain, as Gaian search engines have removed it from their search engines. In the rare case you do find some results, the files available to download are generally malware, and the website is fake. However, it's not impossible to obtain the TPR from Gaia, just difficult. This is not a decision from Pangea, but a decision from Gaian countries, which block Gaian IP's from accessing any website from Pangea, and Gaian browsers refuse to display Pangean websites as well. The reasons stated are usually "Pangean propaganda" (even though Pangean media contains literally every opinion and point of view), "gambling content", "drugs", "obscene content" etc. Travelling to Pangea cannot be done directly from most countries, but there are some countries that "de-facto" (though not de-jure) allow travelling to Pangea, the main ones are: Greenland, Colombia, Tuvalu, the Cayman Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, Belgium, Costa Rica, Montenegro, Qatar, São Tomé and Príncipe, Tonga, and a few other places, but these are the main ones. Other countries do not allow travel to Pangea at all. Even in those countries that de-facto allow travel to Pangea, it's not a good idea to be too loud about it (both for the drivers of the airplanes and for the passengers), as it's technically illegal, though almost never actually enforced in those countries listed before.

9: Social relationships with matchers

Regarding workers: for each social interaction you may wish to have, there is at least one worker (within an easily reachable distance) whose job is to interact with customers in that specific way. That means, social interactions with workers are a guaranteed baseline. You can always pay to have "friendship", company, community etc. however, social relationships with matchers are not guaranteed. Since matchers are simply other customers in their free time who happen to interact with you with both parties' consent (yours and theirs), there is no guarantee of friendship or love. They can use exclusion, discrimination, ostracism, emotional blackmail (e.g. "if you don't do X, I won't be your friend/boyfriend/girlfriend anymore!"), just like people do in Gaia. This creates more complex, unpredictable and even unfair social dynamics, and makes social relationships with matchers very different from social relationships with workers. In Pangea, there are plenty of books, podcasts, media, documentaries, cartoons, movies, videogames etc. that list and/or explain the various types of social relationships with matchers: all the way from healthy to toxic. The exploitation is less severe than it is in Gaia: in Gaia, the choice may often be "if you don't do X, I/we won't be your friend(s) anymore = you'll have no friends at all!", whereas in Pangea, it's "if you don't do X, I/we won't be your friend(s) anymore = the only company and affection you'll get is from workers whose job is to be professional friends or professional cuddlers!". The degree of severity is lesser in Pangea but it's still non-zero (e.g. one may (or may not) have a low self-esteem for not having "real friends"... but again, the severity of the issue is not as bad as it is in Gaia, since there are professional friends as a "baseline"), and by definition, because of the alpha, the media that explains the types of interactions with matchers exist, and there is a huge variety of that. The various opinions (what is "healthy", what is "toxic", when exactly you should set boundaries etc.) vary drastically: for each opinion, you can find media that claims that e.g. "keep your friends close and forgive/tolerate them no matter how they treat you" all the way to "cut your friends off from your life at the slightest imperfection", as well as anything in-between. The Pangean government offers no "official truth" on opinions, as they're simply considered different choices that lead to different consequences, with different underlying "attitudes towards social interactions". Just like everywhere else, spontaneous, voluntary social relationships have a wide variety of dynamics, some good, some toxic, some in-between, the only difference is that in Pangea the alternative to "no spontaneous friends" is "professional friends" rather than "nothing at all". As expected, some media in Pangea promotes the idea that professional friends are better than matchers, some media promotes the idea that matchers are better than professional friends, some media says that hey are both good, some media says that they have both different pros and cons, different characteristics, and some media says that neither matchers nor professional friends are good and that you should spend as much time as possible alone, since solitude is beneficial for you. All possible opinions have media promoting that opinion in Pangea!

10: Layers of fiction

In Pangea, fiction, or LARPing, can have multiple layers. Consider the democracy LARPing. People in Pangea can vote, but whoever gets nominated as "president" has no actual power, it's just a fiction for the people's satisfaction. The true ruler is a different one, and the president cannot actually do anything, he or she can only give speeches, saying "we'll do X", or "we're doing X", in front of a crowd who cheers. You can see those speeches live, or see them on video, but the "context note" says that it's just a live-action role-play: the president has no power to do anything. In democracy LARPing, the president is decided by the total number of votes from Pangean citizens. Once every few years, a new "president" (in the context of the democracy LARP) is elected, based on the votes of those who paid to vote. That's the first layer of fiction. However, if someone does not like the result of the election, they can watch different media, that claims a different president has won. For every candidate who lost, there is such alternative media. Such president also gives speeches in front of a cheering crowd, and you can go watch them live as a spectator, or watch them on video. That's the second layer of fiction, and the context note does explain the entire situation. So, it's a fiction in the context of something that is already fictional (the Democracy LARPing). The "base" reality is that the ruler of Pangea is someone else entirely, and it cannot be chosen by the citizens. There is some media, in Pangea and Gaia alike, that says that in Gaia, elections are also fake: the true rulers of a country are not those who the media says they are, but different ones, who cannot be elected. Accoding to those media, there is no practical difference betweeen elections in Pangea and in Gaia: Pangea is just more honest about it.

Another example of the layers of fiction is that of the media banning LARPing. Let's say that you go there, select the ultra hard mode, and lose. The ultra hard mode is extremely difficult, and the game is rigged against you: the politicians have strong financial interests in not banning the book (as opposed to just having an "anti-censorship" stance due to values), the population is brainwashed and stubborn, and the media constantly praises the book or movie you want to ban. Let's say that you lost, and the book has not been banned: that's the first layer of fiction. The "base reality" is that the book is not banned, the first layer of fiction also includes the "fact" that the book is not banned, but you can specifically request a second layer of fiction, where you won at the ultra hard mode. The newspaper that says "the book has been banned" is printed and given to you, and you're given a trophy saying you won the ultra hard. However, on the back of the trophy and the newspaper, in small characters, there's written, as a "context note": "the victory occurred in the second layer of fiction". As a general rule, the second layer of fiction occurs whenever the first layer of fiction has some rules or constraints, usually either to the rules that define the first layer, or due to it being a shared roleplay, and so the customer can always request a second layer of fiction, where the rules of the first layer do not apply. So, there are at least three layers of "reality" in Pangea: "base reality", first layer of fiction, and second layer of fiction.

12: Viewpoints

Coming soon. This will be very similar to the philosophy section of my website, except that it's adapted to Pangea! Quick guide: numbers are followed by the various different ideas. Numbers with points followed by another number are sub-ideas of their parent idea (e.g. 1.2.4 is a sub-idea of 1.2 which is a sub idea of 1 etc.). An "X" after the number means "all sub-ideas", e.g. "1.2.x" means "all sub-ideas of 1.2". "R" after the number means "response", which indicates a possible response (not necessarily a true one) someone can have towards that idea. Of course, such media also exists and is available to buy. E.g. 1.2.R1 means "response number 1 to the idea 1.2". "T" means "Official Truth", e.g. "1.2.T" means "official truth to the idea 1.2". Official truths are only about empirical facts, it doesn't respond to opinions, preferences, abstract interpretations of reality, or in general, things that can be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways. Note: Pangea is not an English-speaking country, it has its own language (a loglang, which I'm creating), so the ideas presented in the "Viewpoints" section are translations into English.

12.2: Social relationships

A relationship between two or more people.

One person:

1. You're alone, you can do whatever you want. It doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom or rights. Because you're alone. You're free.

Two people (you're interacting with another person):

1: "Friendship" (in the broadest sense possible... there will be examples of toxic, abusive and dysfunctional "friendships" below)
1.1: The social relationship needs to benefit you (selfishness)
1.2: The social relationship needs to benefit the other person (altruism)
1.2.x: But what if it's you who needs something (even just company/affection) from others?
1.2.1: Pretend you don't need it. Keep it inside. Only do favors to others, never ask anything in return.
1.2.2: Unless it's something really important, pretend you don't need it and keep it inside. If it's something you desperately need, ask, and MAYBE you'll get it. Maybe.
1.2.2.1: If you don't get what you need when you desperately need it, you won't help others either.
1.2.2.2: Even if you don't get what you need when you desperately need it, you'll still help others.
1.2.3: Unless it's something that is really unimportant, just ask.
1.3: The social relationship needs to benefit both (utilitarianism???)
1.3.1: The social relationship needs to benefit both, but more to yourself (selfish-leaning utilitarianism)
1.3.2: The social relationship needs to benefit both, but more to the other person (altruism-leaning utilitarianism)
1.3.3: The social relationship needs to benefit both equally (equality-based utilitarianism)
1.3.4: The social relationship needs to benefit both, who more depends on the context (context-based utilitarianism)
1.4: Who should benefit from the social relationship depends on the context.
1.4.1: Who should benefit from the social relationship depends on who can 'give' and who needs to 'receive' (i.e. something beneficial... a favor... or even just some company or affection). Kinda like how Marx said 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'.
1.4.2: Who should benefit from the social relationship depends on how 'worthy' that person is of benefits. This can compound into social hierarchies within a group, and the larger the group, the stricter the hierarchies, but this is for another part of the text. With two people, who should benefit more may be based on the benefit that a person has given to the other person. Of course, with just two people, it is (presumably) equal and transactional, kind of like a symbolic 'currency' between the two people.
1.5: benefit-ratio e.g. (1 = total selfishness, 0 = total-altruism, 0.5 = balanced, 0.75 = selfish-leaning, 0.25 = altruistic-leaning, etc)
1.6: just behave naturally, don't think about these things
1.7: Two criteria: how 'needy' someone is, and how willing to make favors the other person is. The levels of how much someone is a 'giver' and how much one is a 'taker'.
1.7.1: (manipulation technique): you keep the other person dependent on you, so that you can keep doing favors for that person, and then you induce that person to reciprocate favors to you. A situation where that person is not dependent on you disadvantages you since then the opportunities to make favors for that person decrease (or disappear completely), and that means you can't use that to convince the other person to reciprocate your favors. Note that the use of the second-person pronoun "you" here (just like everywhere else in this page) is purely arbitrary, it can be that you're the target of such manipulation technique and the other person is the manipulator. There are other reasons why one may decide to keep the other person dependent (instead of "you" I'll say Person A and instead of "the other person" I'll say person B... one day I'll rewrite this page to be more stylistically consistent):
1.7.1.1: Person A keeps Person B dependent on them because Person A wants to do something (action X) to Person B that Person B does not like or consents to. If Person B is dependent on Person A, then whenever Person B complains about Person A performing Action X, Person A can (correctly) claim that most of what Person A does to Person B is beneficial, implying that Person B should be grateful to Person A. Some sentences that may be added are "you're not perfect either, everyone makes mistakes" or something along those lines in order to justify Action X. Assuming Person A is not dependent on Person B, then Person A can say something like "I've done you way more favors than you've done for me, and this is your gratitude?".
1.7.1.2: Person A keeps Person B dependent on them so that Person A can withdraw favors towards Person B.
1.7.1.2.1: This can be done to keep person B obedient, because the consequence is that Person A will no longer do favors for Person B. (e.g. "if you don't do as I say, then I won't hug you anymore", said to someone who for some reason is addicted to hugs or something, and who has no other person willing to hug them...)
1.7.1.2.2: If Person A is sadistic, then they can do that simply because they enjoy seeing Person B suffer.
1.7.2: you don't manipulate that person with the method described above. If a situation where the person is going to become independent from you arises, you don't stop it from happening. You prefer fairness than manipulation... or perhaps there are other motives behind your lack of use of the manipulation technique described above... such motives may be listed eventually.
1.8: What if you don't really need anything from the other person?
1.8.1: Then you do favors for that person as long as that doesn't hurt/disadvantage you in any way.
1.8.2: Then you don't do any favors for that person.
1.8.3: Then you do favors for that person even if that hurts/disadvantages you.
1.9: The "formula" changes depending on some factors and is not equal for everyone. What factors?
1.9.1: The level of relationship you have with that person. Ranging from strangers through acquaintances through friends to close friends.
1.9.1.1: Close friends have the greatest benefits from you, strangers have the least (perhaps none at all, in fact, depending on your own selfishness-altruism stats).
1.9.1.1.1: Close friends become such because they have given benefits to you. The more benefits they give you, the higher you rank them on the friendship scale.
1.9.1.1.1.1: Parameter "how much can they give to you" taken into consideration.
1.9.1.1.1.2: Parameter "how much can they give to you" ignored.
1.9.1.1.1.3: Parameter "how much do you need from them" taken into consideration.
1.9.1.1.1.4: Parameter "how much do you need from them" ignored.

Question: why do you say something (as opposed to either not saying anything, or saying something else)?

1: To emanate a certain vibe/aesthetics.
2: To benefit yourself (what kind of benefit?)
2.1: Entertainment
2.2: Requesting to do something that may make you happy or give you some kind of benefit
3: To benefit someone else (what kind of benefit?)
4: To benefit both yourself and someone else (what kind of benefit?)
5: To give more information
6: To contradict the other person's beliefs
6.1: To benefit the other person by providing the correct information
6.2: If the contradicting information provides no benefits but hurts the person emotionally, then:
6.2.1: Say it anyway.
6.2.2: Don't say it.
7: To say something the other person already knows (why exactly? maybe for social bonding?)
7.1: Yes, for social bonding.
7.2: Because you find it satisfying/cathartic to reiterate that statement.

What kind of person you're dealing with (in terms of altruism/selfishness)?

1: Altruistic person (goal: benefitting others)
1.1: Totally altrustic (self-defeating): sacrifices self even to slightly please others.
1.2: Almost totally altruistic (self-defeating): sacrifices self if that causes great benefit to others.
1.3: Non-sacrificial: doesn't sacrifice self no matter how much it benefits others.
2: Selfish person (goal: benefitting self)
1.1: Totally selfish: harms others even to slightly please self
1.2: Almost totally selfish: harms others if that causes great benefit to self.
1.3: Harmless: doesn't harm others no matter how much it benefits self.
3: Sadistic person (goal: harming others)
3.1: Totally sadistic: sacrifices self even to slightly harm others.
3.2: Almost totally sadistic: sacrifices self if that causes great harm to others.
3.3: Non-sacrificial: doesn't sacrifice self no matter how much it harms others.
4: Masochistic person (goal: harming self)
4.1: Totally masochistic person: harms others even to slightly harm self
4.2: Almost totally masochistic person: harms others if that causes great harm to self.
4.3: Harmless (to others): doesn't harm others no matter how much it harms self.
4.4: Suicidial (goal: killing self)
4.5: Self-harm but not suicidial (goal: harming self but not killing self)
5: Variable person (goal: varies)
6: Goal: other
6.1: Hates compliments
6.1.1: Will get offended if you compliment them
6.1.2: Doesn't compliment others
6.1.3: But may compliment others if they want
6.2: Loves compliments
6.2.1: Will get offended if you don't compliment them
6.2.2: Doesn't compliment others
6.2.3: Compliment others as well

Responses (to something someone else says to you)

Four main things to consider: what is said (content), how it's said (form), with which emotion it's said (affect), to whom/what kind of person it is said (recipient).

Form can be sub-divided into: vocabulary (lexical component), sentence structure (syntactical/grammatical component), punctuation, tone of voice, emojis/kaomojis/emoticons (extra-verbal component in text-based conversations), body language (extra-verbal component in real life, or in video chats), aesthetics/colors/imagery (in articles/blogs/books/magazines) etc.

Types of people (in terms of "giving" and "receiving") (can of course be a spectrum between the extremes):

Giving:

1: Inflexible. Does not do favors for others, if s/he doesn't feel like it. Exclusively (or almost exclusively) focuses on their own desires.
2: Accomodating. Does favors for others, even if s/he doesn't exactly feel like it. There may be many reasons for this. Can of course have varying degrees of extremes.

Receiving:

1: Indifferent (behavioral). Does not ask for favors, though they may need for them (e.g. even affection, company etc.).
2: Indifferent (emotional). Does not ask for favors, because they don't need them.
3: Needy. Needs favors (e.g. even affection, company etc.) and asks for them.

Possible combinations

1: Inflexible + indifferent (behavioral).
2: Inflexible + indifferent (emotional).
3: Inflexible + needy.
4: Accomodating + indifferent (behavioral).
5: Accomodating + indifferent (emotional).
6: Accomodating + needy.

These 6 types of "personalities" can interact with another person (of varying personalities), giving a result of 36 different types of interactions. Too many to list, and I may (or may not) list them eventually. Not now, since I'm lazy, lol.

Social relationships is small groups (say, 3 to 10 people)

Coming soon...

12.3: Gods and human beliefs

Atheism: the gods do not exist, regardless of human beliefs.
Dei ex hominibus: the gods do not exist if humans do not believe in their existence, they exist if humans believe in their existence. Thus, in some ways, humans create gods, and also destroy gods by no longer believing in them.
Vigilia deorum ex hominibus: the gods exist regardless of human beliefs, but when people don't believe in them (or have no concept of "gods" in their culture), the gods sleep. Once people start believing in one or more specific gods, they (the people) start releasing psychic energies, and the specific god(s) that people believe in will wake up and may begin influencing society or even the environment. Gods in this view are psychic vampires that require humans' psychic energies to stay awake and have power. Once humans stop believing in gods, then the gods (at least in those territories) go to sleep again (they become lethargic, as they cannot stay awake without humans' psychic energies), waiting to be awakened by humans' psychic energies again.
Potestas deorum ex hominibus: the gods exist and are awake regardless of human beliefs, but they only have power (over humans and/or in general) if humans believe in their existence. A possible interpretation is that the gods get their power from the psychic energies of humans, acting in some ways as psychic vampires. It could be that some gods (e.g. those that are in control of natural phenomena, like thunder, rain, earthquakes etc) have power regardless of human beliefs, but some other gods (e.g. those that prescribe a specific set of rules not found in nature, like Yahweh, Allah etc) are psychic vampires that only have power when humans feed them with their (the humans') psychic energies, and when humans no longer believe in those vampiric gods, then those vampiric gods, while still existing, either lose all their powers and become weak and almost moribund (though never dying), waiting in the hope that humans will give them their psychic energies again, or perhaps they just lose powers to influence the human realm but remain awake and healthy. Or it could also be that both categories are psychic vampires, and that in an atheist society, natural forces are really not controlled by any deity.
Dei Terrae ex hominibus: similar to 'potestas deorum ex hominibus' in that human belief in the gods change one of their characteristics, but here, instead of the amount of power, what changes is their 'location' so to speak - the gods exist regardless of human beliefs, but when humans do not believe in a particular deity, that deity remains in a metaphysical realm, unable to affect our world, whereas if humans believe in a particular deity, then the psychic energies coming from humans act as a way to 'summon' that deity into our world. When humans stop believing in that deity, that deity leaves Earth and returns to the metaphysical realm, waiting to be summoned again. That deity does not necessarily need to be believed in by the entire society in order to be summoned, it can also be believed in by a small sub-culture, or even just an individual. Of course, in that case, the deity is 'weaker' and has less control over our world or society, because of the lower amount of psychic energies that deity can use to empower itself.
Voluntas deorum ex hominibus: here, human belief in the gods determines whether or not those gods will affect human society. Unlike in "Potestas deorum ex hominibus", in this interpretation the gods can affect human society regardless of human belief, but they consider it pointless if the humans do not believe in that god's existence. In this interpretation, the gods interpret human belief as desire rather than "belief" proper. When a human society starts believing in one or more gods, those gods interpret it as a desire from humans, perhaps a call for help, and so those gods start intervening. When a society stops believing in certain gods, then those gods will interpret the lack of belief as "we are no longer needed, welcomed or desired here", and so they'll abandon that society.
Cognitio deorum ex hominibus: the gods exist and have power over humans regardless of human beliefs, humans can only either be ignorant of the gods and their power, or be aware of them. This, along with 'atheism', is one of the two options (so far) where not only the existence of the gods but their characteristics as well do not change based on human beliefs.

Coming soon? Distinction between societal beliefs and individual beliefs (e.g. how powerful can a god or abstract concept be if it's believed just by one person?)

How powerful can a god be if it's believed by just one person?

1: No power at all. A god (or any other abstract concept) needs to be believed in by at least a certain number of people in order for it to have any effect. Gods and abstract concepts require communication in order to be effective.
2: Some power, but entirely limited to changing the perception of the believer. This idea, in and of itself, can have drastically diverse implications depending on your view regarding the relationship between "reality" and the mind.
2.1: Naive realism (the view that what we perceive is reality): very limited power, entirely limited to changing one's perception. Perception can alter behavior, beliefs and understanding of things, but it cannot change reality itself.
2.2: Idealism/panpsychism: the mind is the primary or only substance of reality. By changing your perception, you can change reality. To what extent and what effects it can cause exactly, is up to sub-views to decide, but at the very least, socially transmitted information (e.g. "children must be sacrificed to Tlaloc, otherwise there will be severe scarcity", or "if you're not a Muslim, Allah will torture you forever after you die", or "Kim Jong Un is a god-like figure that must be celebrated" etc.) drastically alters one's perception of "reality".
2.2.1: The only thing that changes is human behavior and thought. It doesn't change the "external reality" in a physical sense, although, in an idealist/panpsychist view, that is not super relevant, as the mind, and subjective/intersubjective experiences, are prioritized.
2.2.2: Thoughts can alter reality in a more "physical" sense. Humans' senses are greatly influenced by language, so by having certain ideas repeated since childhoold over and over again, sensorial perception (and therefore reality itself, in a deeper sense) is altered directly.
3: The power varies depending on one's mind. People who have higher psychic skills (which can, depending on the view, be innate, can be acquired through training, or both) can do more things by believing in their deity.
4: Gods have no power, regardless of how many people believe in them. It's just a sociological phenomenon.
4.1: Naive realism/nominalism: sociological phenomena, such as "ideas have consequences", do not imply that the ideas "exist" in any meaningful sense, or that they have any inherent power.
4.2: Idealism/realism: ideas (including gods) have their own existence, and therefore power, but only within the context of sociology. They have no power outside of influencing human behavior and thought. How much power that really is, that depends on your ontology.
4.2.x: similar to 2.2.x

12.4: Afterlife

Previous life/lives:

1: None. This life is the first.
2: One, and it was finite in time.
3: At least one, and the previous one was finite in time.
4: Several but finite.
5: Infinite previous lives.
6: One, and it extends infinitely backwards in time.

About possible afterlife

1: Nothing. Death is the end of consciousness, and there's no consciousness after it. This life is the only life you will ever have.
2: Quantum Immortality. You see other people die, and other people will see you die at some point, but from your own point of view, you will never die, you will keep living forever in this Earth reality.
3: Monotheistic interpretation based on morality and only two/three possible afterlives: there is one god or goddess, and this deity will judge you and place you in heaven if you have behaved well and kindly to others, and will place you in hell if you have behaved badly and hurt others in your life. The interpretation with three possible afterlives can also include an in-between place.
4: Monotheistic interpretation based on morality and multiple degrees of heaven/hell. Depending on how good or how evil you were, the god or goddess that judges you will place you on a different degree of heaven or hell.
5: Monotheistic interpretation based on theological adherence: there is only one god or goddess, and (s)he will place you in heaven or hell based on whether you have been a follower of his/her religion or not. Just as before, it can be interpreted as two possibilities (heaven or hell), three possibilities (heaven, hell, and an in-between place), or multiple degrees in-between. Just like the other one, the afterlife can either be permanent and last forever, or it can be temporary, and after that either you reincarnate, or there will be true death.
6: Monotheistic interpretation where everyone goes to heaven after death. You go to heaven.
7: Monotheistic interpretation where everyone goes to hell after death. You go to hell.
8: Reincarnation. You reincarnate. It can either be infinite reincarnation, or finite reincarnation where one day you will reach true death.
9: You had a previous life, and this is your second and last life, after which there is true death.
10: Becoming a ghost: 'location'-wise you stay in the same human world as other living humans, but in terms of consciousness and interactibility, interpretations may vary (the various interpretations may be coming soon)
11: Reverse morality afterlife: hell (torture, eternal or temporary) if you are a good person, heaven (bliss/pleasure/satisfaction, eternal or temporary) if you are a bad person. This conclusion may or may not be reached by observing nature and human society and generalizing.

There are many other ones too!

In non-modular Christian and Islamic afterlives (though the concepts themselves existed in Pangea way before those two Gaian religions), there is the idea that "the self", and one's memories, persist after death. However, in many (but not all) views, after death, the concept of "the self" dissolves, in one way or another. Here are some views where the concept of "the self" dissolves after death:

1: True death. A view popular among materialists and atheists in Gaia, but in Pangea it's a modular idea just like all the others, and can be part of any worldview. You just cease to exist after death, and there is complete lack of consciousness. In this view, "the self" simply disappears after death.
2: Return to The One. This view says we are all The One, and individuality does not exist. When we are born, we are given life. Life is simply the illusion that we are individuals separated from everything else. The illusion of individuality. After death, we return to The One, (which some people might call God, if that's a word they prefer using), just like we were when we weren't born yet. Death is the true awareness that there is no separation, life causes the illusion that we are individuals, and that we are separated from what is 'not us'.
3: Becoming part of the Collective Dead. After death, we become part of the Collective Dead, losing our identity, and becoming the same thing as all the other dead living beings combined, with no individuality or separation.
4: Our souls get divided in pieces, and each piece will become part of a specific god or goddess. Our personalities, as humans, are complex. To some degree, we all have empathy, sadism, hedonism, masochism, survival instincts, willingness to sacrifice oneself for the collective good, and many other aspects within our souls. In this view, souls are seen as multi-layered, and each different part of our souls gets separated from the rest, and becomes part of a specific deity. Our empathic side becomes part of the god of empathy, our sadistic side becomes part of the god of sadism and so on, losing our identity and our "self", as well.

Permanence of the soul in the afterlife

1: The soul fully persists in the afterlife, complete with memories, personality etc. e.g. the concept of death shared by many (though not all) "original" (i.e. without modularity, with worldviews not modified in the Pangean way) Christians and Muslims.
2: The soul partially persists in the afterlife. e.g. personality or certain characteristics believed to be the core part of an individual persist, though the memories are annihilated. Compatible with some ideas of reincarnation.
3: The soul does not persist in the afterlife in a way that is compatible with the continuity of identity, but it does not get annihilated either. E.g. becoming part of the collective dead, or the idea that our souls get divided in multiple parts and each of them becomes part of a larger deity/soul/entity. The soul itself persists but it gets stripped of its characteristics tied to the individual that was once imbibed with that soul.
3.1: The "collective dead" is the Universe itself, and contains both living and non-living beings. Life (or rather, consciousness) causes the feeling of being an individual, separate from everything else, whereas being dead causes the "feeling" of being everything, the Universe itself. Both feelings are correct and representative of what is actually going on. The Big Bang, or otherwise the start of the Universe (if the Universe ever started in the first place) may or may not have been the death of "the primordial living being", and the Universe, in that case, may be considered as the primordial being's soul, or the primordial being's dead body.
4: The soul gets annihilated in the afterlife. e.g. the concept of death shared by many (though not all) modern western atheists in Gaia.

Existence vs quality vs variety of afterlife

Existence: whether or not there is an afterlife.
Quality: what are the characteristics of such afterlife.
Variety: whether afterlife is the same for everyone or it changes depending on the individual e.g. for the most common (though not only) conception of modern western atheists in Gaia, there is no afterlife, and so the events after death are the same for everyone, whereas for non-Universalist Christians or Muslims, there are at least two separate varieties of afterlife (namely, heaven and hell), so it's not the same for everyone.

12.5: Gender

The existence of people identifying as a gender that differs from that of their biological characteristics, as well as the existence of intersex individuals, has prompted a debate in some Pangean media regarding the question of how to conceptualize gender. Obviously, as with Pangean media in general, all ideas are represented, and one can view and be immersed in the worldviews and definitions they prefer during their free time, and avoid seeing what they don't like. The existence of different definitions of "male" and "female" is seen as any other ideology-dependent semantic shift, kind of like "fascist" in Gaian media. In order to avoid confusion, there is often a "context glossary" that specifies the meaning of the word used in a specific media, so one can know what the word means in that context. If one thinks the "context glossary" in the media is too bloated, one can buy separate "glossary cards" for better understanding of the text.

NOTE: because of the information saturation in Pangea, as well as the fact that the Pangean language often (though not always) creates new words or compounds to be able to be more specific about which definition one is using, a lot of this section (12.5: Gender) refers to media produced in Pangea that applies not just to Pangea but to Gaia as well. That is, some media in Pangea actively discusses the concept of gender in Gaian languages and societies. Well, some media in Pangea discusses literally everything about Gaia, not just gender. Some media in Pangea claims that the best way to resolve linguistic disputes is to create hyponyms, to be able to refer to exactly one's own definition. However, not everyone agrees (as expected... nothing is universally agreed upon in Pangea... nothing), especially because the old words have an emotional and psychological impact that hyponyms may not have. Therefore, even in Pangea, the old words for "male" and "female" have many debates regarding their definitions, as well as many uses, just like in Gaia. The way the Pangean government deals with this is to offer "context cards" that explain which definition was used, in the case a word with debated definitions is used. The Pangean government itself does not say that there is a "correct" definition of "male" and "female", but offers "context" for any piece of media that explains the definition of words in that specific context, in case one wants it. Furthermore, if one disagrees with how the word was used, they can buy a version of the media (e.g. a book or a mpvie) where a different word was used, e.g. if one disagrees that someone with a penis who identifies as a woman is a woman, then that person can buy a version of the media where the word, or the dubbing if it's a movie/cartoon/dubbed videogame/etc. is changed from "woman" to "man". After all, Pangea is fully customizable during free time. Of course, the customization goes far beyond this specific example, this is merely an example. Anyway, so, yes, since the old words for "male" and "female" carry so much psychological impact and hyponyms do not carry the same impact, the words for "male" and "female" in the Pangean language are also subject to different definitions depending on the ideology of the speaker, so this debate applies to Pangea just like it does to Gaia.

Genitalia-based definitions:

1: People who have penises are male, and people who have vaginas are female.
1.1: Intersex people are ignored.
1.2: Intersex people are not ignored.
1.2.n: (coming soon?)

Chromosome-based definitions:

1: People with XX chromosomes are females, people with XY chromosomes are male.

Reproduction/fertility-based definitions:

1: People who can impregnate females are males, people who can be impregnated by males are females, and people who can neither impregnate nor be impregnated (e.g. pre-pubescent children, sterile people, old "women") are genderless.
1.1: "Genderless" is synonym with "non-binary" and is considered a gender on its own.
1.2: "Genderless" is considered as a lack of gender. This is similar to the debate of whether or not atheism is a religion, or a lack of religion (ignoring the whole discourse regarding the idea that monotheism/polytheism/pantheism/etc. are also not religions, or that some forms of Buddhism and Satanism are atheistic, but this would be off-topic to list here).

Self-identification based definitions:

1: People who self-identify as male are males, people who self-identify as females are females. There are only two genders, "non-binary" is not a thing.
2: Same as #1 but non-binary is a thing, so there are three possible genders.
3: Same as the above but gender is a spectrum rather than having a definite number.

Womb-based definitions:

Statement: "If you have a womb, you are a woman. Otherwise, you are not." That is a direct citation from Elon Musk, main proponent of the womb-based definition in Gaia, although such idea existed in Pangea way before Elon Musk proposed it in Gaia. Sub-ideas (Pangea only, since Elon Musk has not yet refined his position):
1: If you don't have a womb, you are a man. (binary womb-based categorization)
2: If you don't have a womb, you are a non-woman (hypernym that may or may not include hyponyms such as "genderless" and "man")

Mixed definitions:

1: People who have penises are male, people who have vaginas are female, intersex people are considered non-binary, but people even if male or female can self-identify as non-binary (but not as the opposite gender), making this view a syncretism between genitalia-based and self-identification. Does not fit the current paradigms of how people think in society, but it's thinkable, so... in this page it goes ;)
2: People who have penises AND do not cry are male. People who have penises and cry are female, as well as intersex people and people who have vaginas.
3: People who have penises AND do not cry are male. People who have vaginas AND do not fart (or at least, fart only secretly, without anyone else knowing, and not admitting it) are female. People who have penises and cry, as well as people who have vaginas and fart, are considered either non-binary, or the opposite gender.
3.1: It's still possible for people who are considered "male" and "female" within this categorization to identify as non-binary if they wish.
3.1.1: They can identify as non-binary but not as the opposite gender.
3.1.2: They can identify as the opposite gender but not as non-binary.
3.1.3: They can identify as either the opposite gender or as non-binary.
3.1.4: They cannot identify as the opposite gender nor as non-binary.
4: People with penises are male but they can identify as females if they want. People with vaginas are females but cannot identify as male.
5: (Vice-versa of the above). People with penises are male and cannot identify as females. People with vaginas are females and can identify as male if they wish.
5.1: Non-binary does not exist in this categorization.
5.2: Non-binary exists in this categorization.
5.2.1: Only people with penises can identify as non-binary.
5.2.2: Only people with vaginas can identify as non-binary.
5.2.3: Both people with penises and vaginas can identify as non-binary.
5.2.4: Only billionaires can identify as non-binary.
5.2.4.1: Billionaires are necessarily non-binary, regardless of their own self-identification or genitalia.
5.2.5: People can only identify as non-binary during Full Moon.
5.2.6: People are necessarily non-binary during Full Moon.
5.2.7: People are necessarily non-binary during Full Moon, but only if they eat tomatoes.
n: anyone can create any ad-hoc conditions that are either necessary or sufficient to define any word (e.g. some media in Pangea claims a penguin is a vehicle, because one can hop on a penguin and ride it like a skateboard... or at least, that's what some media in Pangea says, but the official truth says penguins cannot be used as skateboards). The idea that gender is defined by genitals (or self-identification, or anything else really) is as arbitrary as anything else, but this has to do with linguistics and definitions of the words rather than some ontological thing going on (and even this is up to debate, like literally anything else here in Pangea... some say there may be a distinction between linguistic prescriptivism vs linguistic descriptivism). Some generalize it like "gender (and anything else, any other word/concept/etc.) can be formulated with any ad-hoc conditions and definitions, it's "society" who decides what words mean and how things are categorized and grouped together (linguistic descriptivism), here are some examples of how a hypothetical society (which may not be English-speaking and may have words for gender that are not directly translatable into English... Pangean language is like that, it has many more words for various ideas) may conceptualize gender:", or "no, words have an objective meaning and are not decided by society, and society can be objectively wrong (linguistic prescriptivism), here are what gender objectively means:". Redefinition of words while maintaing their original connotation may happen in human societies for various reasons, and it happened in Pangea too, but this would require a separate page. Of course there can be discussions that are not linguistic in nature but more ontological ("how things actually are"). Yet another type of discussion (perhaps the most common on Gaian social media?) is that of moral consequentialism i.e. "what happens (e.g. to society or individuals or groups of people e.g. "biological women") if people believe in these things/use these words/concepts in this way (rather than in this different way)?". Anyway, let's move on:

Linguistic prescriptivism vs linguistic descriptivism

On December 13, 2025, in Gaia, Elon Musk has said on Twitter (now known as "X"):

If you have a womb, you are a woman.

Otherwise, you are not.

That is an example of linguistic prescriptivism, that is, how words should be used. In response, somebody may say to Elon Musk: "no, you are a woman if you identify as one". That would also be an example of linguistic prescriptivism. The implication of the womb definition of "woman" is that if a person is born with MRKH syndrome, or had a hysterectomy, then that person is not a woman. It's unclear if Elon Musk would consider such a person a man, or someone who is neither a man nor a woman, or some other type of non-woman, his position is not very well explained. Fortunately, Pangean thinkers have thought about this question a long, long time ago. Some Pangean womb-based definitionists say that someone who was previously a woman but had a hysterectomy is no longer a woman, that such person has transitioned into non-womanhood. Some womb-based definitionists, on the other hand, explicitly say that someone who had a hysterectomy has transitioned from a woman to a man. Some say such person remains a woman, but the people who say that are not womb-based definitionists.

Linguistic descriptivism, on the other hand, refers to a description of how the words are used (or can be used, at least in some contexts), without prescribing a particular meaning to a word.

Questions that are similar in structure to "are transgender women women?" may include the following (which have also been explored in-depth by Pangean philosophers): "Are humans animals?", "Are trees animate or inanimate?", "Is someone who is ethnically Chinese (e.g. Han) who is born in London - British?", "Are tomatoes fruit or vegetables?". The answers to those questions entirely depend on the definitions of the predicates of those questions. Whether or not one believes words have objective meanings, or that they don't have objective meanings but should have them in order to communicate better (albeit more rigidly), or that meaning can "validly" vary depending on the context (e.g. subculture, ideology, technical jargon, slang, coded speech, euphemisms etc.), is a different matter. Some have proposed a solution, to consider those vague words as hypernyms and then use new words as hyponyms to be more precise. E.g. "are humans animals?". Answer: humans are "Anim[1]" (a word that includes humans in its definition, but they are not "Anim[2]" (a word that excludes humans in its definition). Of course, "Anim[1]" and "Anim[2]" are merely placeholders for any newly created word. Pangean language often uses hypernyms and hyponyms to communicate more clearly, but not everyone agrees, due to the lack of emotional impact that the old words for "male" and "female" have, and therefore, the linguistic fragmentation remains in the Pangean language as well. Likewise, for "male" and "female" there may be hyponyms that specify what one is talking about. Some English-speaking Gaian thinkers have proposed the distinction between "gender" and "sex", but there is the obvious problem that "sex" also means "sexual intercourse", as well as still remaining ambiguous about the definitions of "male" and "female".

Monolithic vs modular conceptions of gender:

Monolithic: a person is either male, female, non-binary (if allowed), somewhere within the spectrum (if allowed), something else (if allowed), multiple genders simultaneously (if allowed), but there is no distinction between various "aspects" of one's own gender.
Modular: a person's gender can be divided in various "aspects" - which are called "modules" - and each module has a different gender assigned to it. For instance, one can be male in the "genital" module (i.e. that person has a penis), and female in the "appearance", "behavior" (if one believes that behavior differs from males and females, either for cultural reasons, biological reasons, or both) and "conformity to gender roles" modules. The modular conception of gender can be further divided into "solvable modular" and "unsolvable modular". Solvable modular maintains that, while each module may have a different gender, it is possible to say that a person as a whole belongs to one (or more than one, if allowed) gender. Solvable modular can be further divided into emergentist solvable modular and reductionist solvable modular. Emergentist solvable modular maintains that, even if, say, all the modules of an individual are a certain gender (say, male), the person as a whole can still be a different gender (which is considered an emergent property indipendent of the properties of each module), whereas the reductionist solvable modular view would deny that. Unsolvable modular maintains that a person's gender cannot be determined as a whole, but only the gender of specific modules, and this seems to be a valid metaview that is perfectly compatible with both conceptions of gender that are currently (2020's) popular on social media and for which many users (on both sides) passionately insult anyone who disagrees. According to the unsolvable modular view of gender, the people who adhere to the view that gender is defined by one's genitals (or alternatively, one's chromosomes), that is assigned at birth, cannot change, and there are two genders (or three if including rare cases), are referring to the gender of a specific module, that is, the "genital" (or "chromosome") module, whereas the people who adhere to mainstream transgenderism (non-mainstream views may vary from the mainstream one, of course) are referring to a different module, that is, generally the "appearance" module, or some other module. They are both correct, they are just referring to different things. According to the unsolvable modular view, a person's gender as a whole cannot be determined, but only the gender of specific modules. The question then merely becomes which module(s) (if any) should be considered the most relevant in a social/legal context, which is a normative (not descriptive) matter, and therefore subjective, though of course there may still be various arguments that favor one module over the others. I may present the various arguments for and against each of the two contemporary mainstream views of gender (binary genitalia-based gender vs mainstream transgenderism) as seen from the perspective of the unsolvable modular view of gender, and see if it brings anything interesting. Possible nomenclature for modular gender: adverb + male/female/something else (if applicable). E.g. "biologically male", "behaviorally female", "aesthetically female" etc. for instance, someone can be biologically male (i.e. have a penis), aesthetically female (looks like a female and "passes"), but also behaviorally male (behaves in a way generally associated with males). Adverbs: biologically, aesthetically, behaviorally, (possibly others but I don't have anything in mind right now). Note that there are already some words in English for certain combinations (and in the Pangean language for even more combinations), e.g. biologically female + behaviorally male = tomboy, biologically male + aesthetically female = femboy, etc. The solvable vs non-solvable distinction remains: a person's gender "as a whole" may or may not be determined depending on the view. The "binary biological gender worldview" i.e. the one that says that people are male or female depending on their genitals/chromosomes, and is assigned at birth and cannot change (and therefore "transgender females" are males) simply mantains that one's gender is the one with the adverb "biologically", whereas the mainstream transgender worldview focuses on self-identification. This leaves out a plethora of other possible interpretations, but as one should expect, the masses are not particularly creative with abstract thinking (and that's what makes them so easy to manipulate). The "binary biological gender worldview vs mainstream transgender worldview debate" on social media is predominantly lexical/psycho-linguistic, and once you understand it you can understand the topic more clearly.

Relationship between a gender and an individual

This is a more specific version of a larger topic in philosophy, that is, the relationship between a subject and its predicate. In this case, what does it mean exactly that someone "is" male or female (or whatever else). Coming soon, if I feel like it, lol. A starting point may be: nominalism vs conceptualism vs realism.

Pragmatical views on gender

In terms of the "validity" of concepts such as binary genital-based view or transgender view, some would say only one of the two is valid, some would say they're both valid etc. Another aspect of the debate, however, as I mentioned before, is one of moral consequentialism, that is: "what happens (e.g. to society or individuals or groups of people e.g. "biological women") if people believe in these things/use these words/concepts in this way (rather than in this different way)?" This is a question unrelated to a purely conceptual "validity" of the views on gender, and it refers to the consequences adopting one view or the other has in the real world. Based on my admittedly anecdotal observations of reading discussions on social media, there is a considerable amount of people on both sides of the discussion that suggest solutions that, if implemented, would cause inconveniences to some people (either to transgender people or "transphobes", depending on the views ot the arguer). The inconveniences may range from mild to severe. There are sometimes attitudes ranging from dismissal to Schadenfreude regarding those inconveniences, with some people arguing that those people experiencing those inconveniences are "bad" and therefore one ought not to care about it. A more utilitarian-minded person would instead try to minimize the inconveniences for all people. What those methods are may be explored here (keep in mind that I'm by no means an expert on these topics and therefore all ideas listed here are merely speculative, and also, of course I won't agree with all ideas, I'll just list whatever one may think, regardless of whether or not I agree with it).

Enter the concept of "hypernym". A hypernym is a word whose meaning includes a group of other, more specific words (which are called "hyponyms"). One may formulate a word related to gender, e.g. "woman" to be a hypernym of both "cisgender woman" and "transgender woman", which would be the hyponyms of "woman". This erases the distinction between the two, and so, at least conceptually, one does not have to specify which of the two one or someone else belongs to. One may still have to do that for pragmatical/social/cultural reasons, but that would vary depending on the social context one's in. There are two varities of hypernyms, "atomic" and "non-atomic". A non-atomic hypernym can be divided into hyponyms, whereas an atomic hypernym cannot be divided into further hyponyms. The notion that a hypernym is atomic may be based on either logic (descriptive atomic) or social conditioning (normative atomic). Based on my observation (almost exclusively on social media), it seems like even in so-called "woke" spaces that are (or claim to be) supportive of transgender people, the constant reminder that one is transgender may generate a feeling of inadequacy in that person, with some underlying thoughts that one is not a "real" [insert gender]. This feeling of inadequacy may be attenuated or even removed in a social context where there is no mention of transgenderism at all and that "male" and "female" refer to the hypernym mentioned above, with no extra-qualifier. This lack of extra-qualifiers may however cause inconveniences in the broader society, and some people may not mind being considered as transgender. Some may even be specifically glad of it. It likely varies depending on the person. It may be theoretically possible to arrange an interaction between people who specifically hold the view that the distinction between cisgender and transgender is irrelevant, creating the possibility of having such social context. With the advance of technology, in fact, it may become possible to arrange social interactions between groups of people who hold any particular view, creating the real world equivalent of "echo chambers". The idea is that no matter who you are, there are "right" people for you somewhere out there, you just need to find them, and that technological progress may make the process of finding those people much easier in the future, perhaps even trivial.

Another option one may suggest is to dismiss transgenderism and claim that it's a "mental illness" or something of the sorts, and that only cisgender identities are valid, and to assign everyone a gender based on their genitals/chromosomes, regardless of self-identification. There are several worldviews that hold these attitudes. The implementation of this system will cause significant inconveniences, but as said before, one can dismiss it, especially by labelling the inconvenienced people in a negative manner and claiming they are undeserving of being free from such inconveniences. An utilitarian-minded person will not propose this approach. This may be a little off-topic but for now I'm putting it here: there are several ways one can dismiss someone else's inconveniences, here are some examples (provided in the plural but can also apply to a singular person):

1: "Those people are bad and therefore one ought not to care (or "I do not care") about their inconveniences"
1.1 (Schadenfreude variant of the above): "Those people are bad and therefore they deserve those inconveniences"
1.2 (more extreme variant of the above): "Those people are bad and therefore they deserve those inconveniences, and if anything, they are not being inconvenienced enough!"
2: It is not that those people are bad or that they deserve inconveniences, it is simply the case that the one uttering the sentence does not care (for reasons unrelated to hatred).
3: The one uttering the sentence considers it to be a bad thing that some people are experiencing inconveniences, and does not consider those people as bad, but claims that acting to remove or reduce those conveniences would be the greater of the two (or more) evils, because it would inconvenience more people, or would inconvenience some people more intensely (regardless of whether that is true or not).
4: "It's not true that those people are inconvenienced, they're just playing the victims!" (regardless of whether it's true or not).

Common debates revolve around bathrooms and competitive sports. There are likely ways to sidestep these issues in a way that minimizes inconveniences for everyone. It may be coming if I feel like it.

Gender Magick

Tentative idea (to build upon eventually): societal definition of genders, individual (or sub-cultural) definitions of genders, hypothetical (counterfactual?) definitions of genders.

Tentative idea 2: distinction between nominalism, conceptualism and realism. The latter may (in some interpretations) imply that "maleness" and "femaless" (or possibly others if one's worldview includes other forms of gender) exist as independent entities (perhaps conscious?), or as energies that one can use to achieve some goals.

Idea (I'll call it 'R'): 'maleness' and 'femaleness' exist not only as concepts, but also as energies that can be used and actively manipulated. Whether or not other 'genders' other than male and female 'exist' will of course vary depending on the view. The answer to that question is unspecified by default (unless otherwise noted).

R1: Male and female energies exist and always existed.
R1.1: That is what causes a living being to be born as male or female. When living beings reproduced asexually, male and female energies existed but did not yet physically influence our world.
R1.2: But male and female energies do not automatically have causal effects on our physical world, unless a magician manipulates those energies. How such practices are done and what effects they can have is complex to explain, but some ideas can be written down.
R.1.2.1: magicians may be able to determine gender roles, or how gender is conceptualized (e.g. whether it's entirely defined by genitals, or if other definitions become accepted). Those who determine cultural views, in the past, present and future, in any country or society, are what some media calls "elite magicians", although those who manipulate thoughtforms without determining cultural values may also be considered magicians, though not part of the elite. Most people will believe anything "society" (i.e. what some media calls "elite magicians") will tell them, because they are under the influence of a psychic spell. Some people are less vulnerable than others (due to certain characteristics), but such spell will affect (and has affected, and is affecting) the vast majority of people, in any historical period and/or location/country. The "opinions of the majority" are (or are influenced by) a non-human/non-physical entity that some media calls "Demos". The relationship between elite magicians, Demos, and the masses who are under the influence of such practices may be complex, and it's for another page (as it's a template that may be used in different concepts/pages, not just regarding genders). In Pangea, Demos has much less power compared to elsewhere, and its power is more concentrated in the post-market, where Demos has some power, though it's still very weak compared to other countries.
R.1.2.1.1: elite magicians may imbibe some objects, clothes, or even colors with a specific gender's energy.
R.1.2.1.1.1: the item itself carries that energy, regardless of who perceives it (even someone from another culture, which may be under the effect of a different spell).
R.1.2.1.1.2: both the item itself must be imbided with a certain energy, and the person must be targeted with a specific psychic spell in order for the resonance to occur.
R.1.2.1.1.3: it is sufficient that an individual be under the effect of a psychic spell, an item itself does not carry any gender-related energy.
R.1.2.1.1.3.1: an individual, through magickal practices, can subject themselves under a spell that is different from the one that the other people in their culture/society are affected by. This can be either interpreted as "being free from the influence of a psychic spell" (as one has decided for oneself how to view things), or "under the influence of a self-imposed psychic spell". As for how "the self" is conceptualized, this can complicate stuff even more. For instance, "the self" that has cast the "self-imposed psychic spell" may or may not be the "same" entity as "the self" that is under the effect of the spell. For example, the "self" that has cast the spell may be considered an external entity, or a part of one's mind/self not under one's control (especially if one has 'uncommon' beliefs not consciously chosen, what psychiatrists call 'delusions' (for a lack of a more neutral term), in that case, determining agency may become more complex). That "self" that has cast the psychic spell [let's call it self-A] may for instance be conceptualized as a deity or external entity that the "self" who will soon be under the spell [let's call it self-P] has summoned in order to "help" with the ritual. In this case, agency-wise, it's not self-P that has cast the spell, but self-P has consciously and willingly summoned self-A to help carry out the ritual. Whether "self-A" is "really" part of oneself, or whether it's an "external" entity, depends on the view. Distinctions are arbitrary, and "the self" is not as clear of a concept as many would think.
R2: the question of "non-binary" and other gender identities:
R2.1: they do not exist, as male and female energies cannot be mixed in order to create a new energy/gender. Only male and female exist. They only interact to produce new offspring of a species.
R2.2: they do exist, as male and female energies can be mixed in order to create a new energy/gender. Implications may vary.
R3: male and female energies did not always exist, but only started existing when living beings started reproducing sexually, and only exist in locations where such species exist (e.g. such energies do not exist on Mars, and if some catastrophic event happens such as Earth will become devoid of life, male and female energies will disappear).
R.3.x: same pattern as R.1.x

Trans-transgenderism (work in progress, first draft)

Work in progress, but here are a few examples to illustrate the concept:

1: A cisgender girl who identifies as a transgender girl (e.g. aesthetically, socially, behaviorally). Basically, a cisgender girl who adopts the typical behaviors, appearance, concepts etc. of a transgender girl.
2 (maybe???): Vice-versa, a transgender girl who identifies as a cisgender girl, though this is way more typical and expected, so perhaps it's not really "trans-transgenderism", but regular transgenderism.
3: A transgender girl (MtF) who identifies as a transgender guy (FtM). What this would be like, I'm still trying to figure out, but it won't take a while, I'm a really creative person.
4: A transgender girl who identifies as a transgender girl. Like, intentionally focusing on the aesthetics, behaviors etc. of transgender girls themselves rather than focusing on appearing as close as possible to a cisgender girl. It's like, "meta-transgenderism".
5: Others, but I'll have to develop this concept better. These are just the first ideas that came into my mind.

12.6: Hedonism

Coming soon...

12.7: Forgiveness and revenge

This is just one among the many possible categorizations, of course.

Two main "statuses" of a wrong-doer (from the perspective of a victim):

-Forgiven
-Unforgiven

Several main "statuses" of a wrong-doer (from the perspective of a victim):

-Forgiven
-Untrusted 1 (no hard feelings towards that person, relationship is ended for pragmatic reasons i.e. to avoid being hurt again, feelings are "soft" so the victim may do favors and benefits towards the wrong-doer as long as that does not put the victim into a vulnerable position)
-Untrusted 2 (no hard feelings towards that person, relationship is ended for pragmatic reasons i.e. to avoid being hurt again, feelings are not very "soft" so while there are no hard feelings towards the wrong-doer anymore, there will be no favors or benefits done towards them, even if doing so will not put the victim into a vulnerable position)
-Unforgiven 1 (no revenge, but relationship is ended)
-Unforgiven 2 (revenge)

Three 'aspects' of wrong-doing:

-Perfective (only once was the misdeed performed, and there is no reason to believe it will happen again)
-Habitual (habitual repetition of the same misdeed, and there is therefore good reason to believe it will happen again)
-Past Habitual (the misdeed was a habitual action but the wrong-doer has changed and stopped doing it, and there is no reason to believe it will happen again)

"Levels" of wrong-doing:

1: Very low
2: Low
3: Medium
4: High
5: Very high

(note: it can be any number of levels, not just 5, and what is deemed "unforgivable" depends on how strict the victim's standards are)

Observation: in the case where a wrong-doing is habitual, there may be a distinction between whether you are able to stop the wrong-doer from doing it, or whether you are not able to stop them from doing it. In the latter case, "forgiveness" is merely an emotional attitude, and is unable to cause any actual change in the course of events.

Intention of harm vs actual harm caused by the wrong-doer:

0I: No intention of harm
1I: Very low intention of harm
2I: Low intention of harm
3I: Medium intention of harm
4I: High intention of harm
5I: Very high intention of harm
0H: No actual harm
1H: Very low actual harm
2H: Low actual harm
3H: Medium actual harm
4H: High actual harm
5H: Very high actual harm

E.g. 5I-1H is a wrong-doer who has a very high intention of harm, but actually caused very little harm to the victim (possibly because the wrong-doer did not have the possibility of causing more damage, or perhaps the wrong-doer falsely believes that the victim has been greatly harmed). 0I-5H is someone who had no intention of harm at all, but accidentally caused very high damage.

Five main approaches to wrong-doing:

1: Cut off the relationship with the wrong-doer without giving any warning or explanation
2: Cut off the relationship with the wrong-doer without giving any warning, but an explanation as to what the wrong-doing was
3: Giving a warning that an action is considered a wrong-doing, and if that action continues, cut off the relationship with that person
4: Giving a warning that an action is considered a wrong-doing, but even if that action continues, do not cut off the relationship with that person (doormat)
5: Not giving any warning and just suffer silently, pretending that everything is okay

Approaches to revenge (there are several combinations):

1: No revenge in any circumstance (pacifism, though violence *may* be allowed in self-defense if there's an immediate risk to oneself)
2: No revenge for perfective wrong-doings (i.e. the ones done only once), revenge for habitual wrong-doings
3: Revenge for both perfective wrong-doings AND habitual wrong-doings
4: Revenge for perfective wrong-doings but not for habitual wrong-doings (very bizarre but still a possible combination)
5: Revenge for intentional harm but not for accidental harm, or unaware harm (i.e. something someone has done without knowing it had hurt you)
6: Revenge for habitual intentional harm but not for perfective intentional harm, nor for accidental/unaware harm of any kind.
7: Distinction between words (emotional damage) vs actions (physical damage).
7.1: "Sticks and bones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".
7.2: "I don't care if you break my bones but if you insult me you're gonna regret it!".
7.3: Forgiving both.
7.4: Applying revenge in both situations.
7.4.1: Only fighting insults with insults, and physical violence with physical violence.
7.4.2: Both insults and physical violence are retaliated against with physical violence.
7.4.3: Both insults and physical violence are retaliated against with insults.
7.4.4: Fighting insults with physical violence, and physical violence with insults (bizarre approach but still thinkable).

Quantity of revenge:

1: No revenge
2: Revenge equal to the harm you've been subjected to
3: Revenge higher to the harm you've been subjected to
4: Revenge lower to the harm you've been subjected to
5: More nuanced

12.9: Free Speech

Discussions regarding "free speech" on Gaian social media tend to be very simplistic and often ignore psychology, sociology, linguistics, psychological manipulation, lies, propaganda, trust towards authorities, science of communication and interpersonal relationships (and power dynamics in interpersonal relationships). On Pangean social media, those simplistic discussions also exist, but alongside more complex or weirder discussions. Here are some viewpoints you can find on Pangean social media:

Two main positions:

1: pro-free speech
2: pro-censorship

More nuanced positions:

1: Isomorphic free speech: a situation of "free speech" (except the usual suspects e.g. slander, death threats, doxxing etc.) that is the same everywhere and in every situation.
2: Sandboxed free speech: kinda like when you try to use a bike indoors in Pokemon games. "There's a time and place for everything". That means, depending on the place and situation, what can be said varies. However, there's no top-down censorship superstructure.
2.1: Geo-sandboxed free speech: what can and cannot be said varies depending on the location (e.g. a Christian church may not allow pro-Satan speeches).
2.2: Socio-sandboxed free speech: what can and cannot be said varies depending on the situation and social context.
2.3: Inclusive sandboxed free speech: there's a time and place for everything, but for each speech, there exists at least one place such as that speech is allowed.
2.3.1: Inclusive sandboxed free speech with singularity: I define "the singularity" as a 'place', concrete (e.g. a physical location) or abstract (e.g. a website), that allows all speech. Then, there are non-singularity 'places' that may censor some speech, or all speech bar a very specific worldview that they want to promote.
2.3.2: Inclusive sandboxed free speech without singularity: there is no "singularity" (a place where every speech is allowed), but for every speech, it remains the case that there is at least one place that allows such speech.
2.3.a: Potential inclusive sandboxed free speech: there's a time and place for everything, but for each speech, there exists at least one place such as that speech is allowed. However, there's no guarantee that every speech is actually said.
2.3.b: Actualized inclusive sandboxed free speech: this is precisely the situation that occurs in a fictional country I'm creating. Every statement and its opposite is actually said by someone, and that speech is accessible (usually by paying). Speech can occur in many forms: books, podcasts, live speeches, social media posts etc. in this situation, the extreme amount and variety of speech that is actually said is facilitated and often done by huge infotainment industries whose job is to say everything and its opposite, so that people can access precisely the speech they want to hear (or read, depending on the format).
2.4: Non-inclusive sandboxed free speech: there may be at least one speech for which there exists no place such as that speech is allowed.
3: Isomorphic non-free speech (moderate censorship): a situation of moderate censorship that is the same everywhere and in every situation.
4: Sandboxed non-free speech (moderate censorship): mostly the same as 2.x but with moderate censorship.
5: Isomorphic/sandboxed non-free speech (high/extreme censorship): if you read the explanations above, this will be pretty self-explanatory.

Rights of the listener

Many discussions on Gaian social media regarding "free speech" often focus on the rights of the speaker. What rights does the listener have, though? Some thinkers (both Pangean and Gaian alike) have explored this question:

1: No rights at all. Listeners cannot refuse to listen (or read) a certain content if the speaker wants them to listen. How that would be enforced, especially online, is unclear.
2: Right to refuse (e.g. one can scroll away, or get away IRL), but still, it's possible (perhaps even frequent) that the person will still encounter content they don't want to "consume" (though they are allowed to scroll away or get away IRL).
3: Right to refuse + optional algorithmic filter (generated by AI?) such as a person can, through a prompt or some other manner, describe what kind of content they don't want to see, and the algorithm will hide that content from them. It's not at all unlikely, IMHO, that because of AI, in the future one will be able to describe exactly what they want in their "feed" through a prompt, and then get the content they want e.g. "I want news regarding anime, videogames, and flip phones... I don't want to see political content or videos about animals, except koalas occasionally, which should be 1% of my feed" and then the AI will generate a feed that is exactly as you described. It seems very plausible to me, and I think one will be able to have multiple feeds as well.
4: Right to refuse + right to make that content inaccessible to everyone (censor it). For pragmatic reasons, not everyone can have such right, of course, otherwise all content would be banned, but it's still a logical possibility (it's not contradictory in a logical sense to have a situation where all content is banned, just highly unpragmatic). In general, only the rulers of a society have such right.
5: Variable (due to hierarchies?). Perhaps in some situations, one is not allowed to refuse listening, and in some other situations one is.

Regarding "freedom to seek" (i.e. freedom to access content that already exists, which may be legal or illegal): coming soon.

Social media vs real life

Real life and social media are structured in different manners.

Social media: distinction between monopersonal and multipersonal content

Different websites are structured differently. Some types of content can be considered "monopersonal" (created by just one person... or perhaps even multiple people agreeing to work on the same content in case it's more complex), like a YouTube video, or a story or a drawing on DeviantArt, and "multipersonal" (created by multiple people, without a strict agreement), like a thread on a forum or on Reddit, or a conversation on X/Twitter. "Free speech" (i.e. lack of strict rules) may be more problematic on a website that prioritizes content that I call "multipersonal". Moreover, different people may place different degrees of importance on comment sections of monopersonal content.

Legal vs cultural. Some speech may be legal but condemned by "the majority" (which, in some interpretation, is a non-human/non-physical entity that I call "Demos"), or vice-versa.

What does "free speech" mean?

Interpretation 1: X is free to say Y without being subjected to consequence Z, which implies doing Z is illegal. However, there are many reasons why a person may not say something. For instance:

1: Not disappointing their friends or family, or wanting to be in good relationship with them.
2: Fear of social consequences that are the next worst thing possible besides Z (which is illegal).
2.1: Fear of being boycotted, or being hated by most people (especially, but not only, if you're susceptible to that e.g. you're insecure or have low self-esteem).
2.2: In many cases there are incentives to say something rather than something else, e.g. when saying something (Y1) brings better consequences compared to saying another thing (Y2), even when Y2 brings no negative consequences. X says Y1 simply because the consequences it brings are better, even though X may not believe Y1 and may not even have wanted to say Y1. It's obviously impossible to legislate against such situation. The only "solution" would be to live in a virtual reality where everyone you interact with is some sort of AI or in any case doesn't have a consciousness. If you interact with real people that have consciousness, and their own behavior and preferences, as well as the existence of power imbalances, "freedom" in its pure form does not exist. Whether this is some sort of existential tragedy or something to be accepted, or something that brings you no particular feeling, or whatever you may feel towards it, is a subjective feeling.

Regarding "Z" (in "X is free to say Y without consequence Z"): what is Z?

1: Nothing. Z does not exist. Which means, of course, if you say something, you may be jailed, tortured, or even put to death. As the famous quote of Idi Amin says: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech". That is, you can say something (physically speaking), but what happens after you do?
2: Death penalty. You can speak without being put to death for it. Which logically results in a situation where it is illegal for anyone to kill you for what you said. However, you can be jailed, tortured, or even just fired from your job. The logic, for any Z in "X is free to say Y without consequence Z", is that it's illegal for anyone to do Z, so I won't repeat this concept.
3: Death penalty, torture or jail. You cannot be put to death, nor be tortured nor jailed. However, you can be fired from your job, for example.
4: Death penalty, torture, jail or being fired from your job. Regarding other things, they all can be done. I don't have any example in mind right now.
5: Everything except speech. So, the only consequence for your speech is other speech, which is to be expected in a context where "freedom of speech" is said to be valued. The interesting question to consider is: in a situaton like this, would one be "free" to speak their mind? Can speech (e.g. expression of hostility, public shaming, "silent treatment" (though in this case it's lack of speech) etc.) be enough to undermine the subjective feeling of having freedom of speech? I may explore these questions eventually. This being said, individuals or groups who are in a position of power can easily do everything in their power to "optimize" "non-Z" (what one is allowed to do to someone who said a certain thing) in order to silence a certain narrative that they don't like. Even if non-Z is just speech, lots can be done: propaganda, societal manipulation, taking advantage of the fact that most people are conformist (and as observed in the Solomon Asch's conformity experiments, one may conform to something that directly contradicts their own observations as well), fear of public shaming, scapegoating etc. I may explore this aspect in a more detailed and nuanced way in the future. It seems to me that the only way to have "true freedom" really is living in a solipsistic reality where everything goes according to your wishes.

If the only consequence for speech is more speech (coming soon)

Things to consider: power dynamics, propaganda, conformism, appeal to authority (i.e. the speech of authorities is perceived by the masses as "more valid" compared to the speech of an ordinary citizen, putting the latter in a situation of disadvantage), emotional blackmail, etc. the paradoxical situation is that even if the consequence of speech is only more speech, that can create a situation where one is not free to speak their mind. However, if that consequence ("more speech") is banned, then there's no freedom of speech either, by definition. It seems then to be the case, prima facie, that freedom of speech cannot exist. However, I need to take into consideration the "rights of the listener", as well as the possibility of a proportion-independent social structure where people mostly aggregate based on shared ideas and/or interests, maybe I can find out something interesting. Perhaps "freedom of speech" by itself is a void concept, if not supplemented by "freedom of listening"? Some say that the Pangean "professional friends" economy has solved this exact problem, whereas others say "professional friends" are fake and hollow and have made things worse (as expected, there's every opinion in Pangea).

Opinions whether professional friends have solved the paradox of "free speech"

Coming soon...

In the new text, I'll list the various possible reactions to compliments and insults separately, otherwise I'd have to type in way too many combinations.

12.14: Reactions to compliments and insults

Compliments:

1: Make you feel really good
2: Make you feel nothing because they're default or expected
3: They won't change your mood or self-esteem (because of sadness/apathy)
4: They won't change your mood or self-esteem (because you already feel good about yourself anyway)
5: They won't change your mood or self-esteem (because you feel bad about yourself in any case)
6: Will only give you a mild happiness
7: Will annoy you. You don't want to be coddled, because:
7.1: You believe that being coddled will make you weaker/more fragile/insecure and addicted to compliments
7.2: You believe that being coddled means the other person sees you as weak/fragile/insecure and the other person is only complimenting you to provide comfort, comfort that you don't need (either that you actually don't need, or that you need but don't want to admit in order to avoid:
7.2.1: being seen as weak)
7.2.2: actually be/become weak (from the coddling))
8: You don't like a specific compliment you've received, because it's a compliment relative to something you don't care about being good at (you may or may not want to be complimented but not on that particular aspect you've been complimented about). Here's one example: "I'm not cute, I'm cool!". This is when someone wants to be seen in a certain way rather than another way, even though both are "good" (albeit in different ways). This can occur due to aesthetical preferences, for example. There are various "types" of positivity. For example, let's say you go to the gym a lot in order to be seen as "strong", then you may not necessarily appreciate being called "cute" (that can potentially even be offensive, as that is not necessarily how you want to be seen (though it can as well be, of course), even if it's a "compliment")
8.1: That "compliment" has hurt you because while you may understand that a certain adjective or phrase was meant in a good way by those who have used it to describe you, you actually don't want to be seen in that specific way, so you feel in some way invalidated or hurt by that compliment.

Outward reactions to compliments

1: Thanking the complimenter (may or may not involve blushing).
2: Blushing and not saying anything.
3: Unenthusiastic thanking.
4: Denying the compliment ("no, I'm not that good" or something like that).
4.1: Because you genuinely feel that way about yourself.
4.1.1: but still appreciate the intent behind the compliment.
4.1.2: you do not appreciate the intent behind the compliment.
4.1.2.1: you do not appreciate the intent behind the compliment but you do not reply with hostility.
4.1.2.2: you do not appreciate the intent behind the compliment and you reply with at least some hostility.
4.2: You may or may not genuinely feel that way about yourself but the intent is to induce the complimenter to double down and complimenting you again, (e.g. "no, I actually mean it, you're actually that good").
5: ignoring it (for various reasons).
5.1: because you don't like compliments.
5.2: because you don't like that specific compliment (you may or may not want to be complimented but not on that particular aspect you've been complimented about).
6: replying with at least some hostility.
6.x: (same as 5.x)
7: replying with "you're [comparative adjective] than me" e.g. "you're cuter/smarter/etc. than me". This can work with insults as well.
8: acting passively aggressively.
8.1: making sarcastic comments about how good you are.
8.2: (mix between 8 and 7) making sarcastic comments about how better than you the other person is.
9: "I'm not [compliment received], I'm [another good adjective]". E.g. "I'm not cute, I'm cool!". Look at the example of someone who goes to the gym in the list above, at #8.

Insults:

1: Make you feel really bad
1.1: Self-hatred/low self-esteem
1.2: Hatred towards the person/people who insulted you
1.3: Both lowers your self-esteem and causes you to hate the person/people who insulted you
2: Only give you a mild annoyance/disappointment
3: They won't change your mood or self-esteem (because of sadness/apathy)
4: They won't change your mood or self-esteem (because you feel good about yourself in any case)
5: They won't change your mood or self-esteem (because you already feel bad about yourself anyway)
6: Make you feel nothing because you expect insults already
7: Will give you a positive feeling
7.1: Because you enjoy self-deprecation
7.2: You don't hate yourself but you enjoy seeing other people's reactions
7.2.1: Because you hate those people, and in some way, seeing them hate you/making fun of you is satisfying
7.2.2: You neither hate yourself nor other people, you just think it's funny (in a non-Schadenfreude way) if people insult you/hate you/make fun of you.
7.3: You neither enjoy self-deprecation nor you enjoy seeing other people's reactions, but rather, you believe that receiving insults and mockery will make you stronger, and therefore you either "do not care" if that happens, or you actually actively try to elicit that kind of response in others, with the goal of making yourself "stronger".
7.4: In this approach/logic, you like it when people insult you, because it gives you the feeling that you're not a "tyrant" who tries to shut down disagreement. And so if someone insults you or makes fun of you, it's a reminder to yourself that you're "open-minded" or something, which may cause you satisfaction.
7.5: Here, you like it when someone insults you or makes fun of you, because you believe that insult and mockery may contain a "kernel of truth", which you then intend to use as constructive criticism and improve yourself.
7.5.1: You improve yourself for your own sake/benefit (using the advice hidden within the insults and mockery you receive, as there may actually be something useful in there). That means, other people may not agree that you have improved, or they may say you have improved but still hate you or make fun of you, but that doesn't matter, because pleasing others was not the goal of your self-improvement in the first place.
7.5.2: You improve yourself to please others.
7.5.2.1: Even if you disagree that what you're doing is "improvement".
7.5.2.2: Only if you too agree that what you're doing is "improvement". Your goal in this case is to please others, sure, but not if doing that requires you to go against your own values.
7.6: You may (or may not) feel bad because of an insult, but you may appreciate the insult you received from an artistic perspective, especially if such insult was particularly creative.
7.7: You appreciate that "insult" because while you may understand that a certain adjective or phrase was not meant in a good way by those who have used it to describe you, you actually want to be seen in that specific way, so you feel in some way validated by that insult.
8: you're not hurt by that specific insult because it's not something you're insecure about. Let's say for instance that you are overweight, but you are not insecure about that. Instead, you are insecure about your own personality and you are pretty much a people pleaser, and even the idea of someone feeling hurt or sad because of something you did/said terrifies you, because you dread the idea of hurting anyone. Then, someone saying that you are fat will not hurt you, but if someone says you are "mean" or "insensitive" or "annoying" or something like that will make you feel bad. On the other hand, if you prefer being seen as "badass" or something, and you are insecure about your own weight, if someone said you are mean or insensitive or annoying you won't feel hurt (you may potentially even enjoy it), whereas if someone says you are fat, you'll feel bad about it. So, depending on one's own insecurities, which insults that person is vulnerable to will change.

=== OLD TEXT ===

Possible reactions to insults and compliments (version 0.1)

1: Insults make you feel really bad, compliments make you feel really good
2: Insults make you feel really bad, compliments make you feel nothing because they're default or expected
3: Compliments make you feel really good, insults make you feel nothing because they're default or expected
4: Neither compliments nor insults change your mood or self-esteem (because of sadness/apathy)
5: Neither compliments nor insults change your mood or self-esteem (because you already feel good about yourself anyway).
6: Neither compliments nor insults change your mood or self-esteem (because you feel bad about yourself in any case).
6: Insults make you feel terrible, compliments only give you a mild happiness
7: Compliments make you feel wonderful and very happy, insults only give you a mild annoyance/disappointment
8: Insults don't change your mood or self-esteem at all, compliments only give you a mild happiness
9: Insults don't change your mood or self-esteem at all, compliments make you feel very happy
10: Compliments don't change your mood or self-esteem at all, insults only give you a mild annoyance/disappointment
11: Compliments don't change your mood or self-esteem at all, insults make you feel terrible

-Ratio-dependent reactions:

1: Having 100% of people compliment you makes you feel neutral, having even one person insulting you makes you feel terrible.
2: Having 100% of people compliment you makes you feel a bit comforted but you still feel sad, having even one person insulting you makes you feel terrible.
3: Having 100% of people compliment you makes you feel mildly happy, having even one person insulting you makes you feel terrible.
4: Having 100% of people compliment you makes you feel very happy, having even one person insulting you makes you feel terrible.
5: Having 100% of people compliment you makes you feel [insert one of the feelings above... otherwise this text would be too long if I had to include all of them separately], having one person insult you is not a big deal.
6: Having 100% of people compliment you makes you feel [again, one of the feelings above], having one person insult you doesn't change your mood compared to 100% people complimenting you. It's just one person, after all.
7: Having 100% of people compliment you makes you feel [one of the feelings above], having one person insult you makes you feel satisfied because of (1: "diversity of opinion" or, 2: "it's fine that not everyone likes me, we're all different, after all" or, 3: "I'm awesome since everyone likes me, but listening to that person who dislikes me can give me the opportunity of improving my own faults!" or 4: something else).
8: In order for you to feel happy or have a good self-esteem, at least 90% people should compliment you. Insults are fine if they do not exceed 10% of the people you know.
9: In order for you to feel happy or have a good self-esteem, at least 50% people should compliment you. Insults are fine if they do not exceed 50% of the people you know.
10: It is not the percentage itself that you consider, but you compare your percentage to others. If 85% people compliment you, you feel like you're better than someone who is complimented by 80% of but not as good as someone who is complimented by 90% of people.
11: It is not the percentage itself that you consider, but you take into consideration your relationship with those people, and you do not weigh every compliment and insult equally. A compliment or an insult by someone you know well and is close to you has much more weight than a compliment or insult made by an acquaintance, or someone you don't know well, let alone by a stranger, or someone you don't like.

=== NEW TEXT (COMING SOON) ===

-Compliments and insults do not affect how you see yourself or others
-Compliments and insults do not affect how you see yourself but they affect how you see others
-Compliments and insults affect how you see yourself but not how you see others
-Compliments and insults affect both how you see yourself and how you see others

Seems like these issues stem from conformism, the desire for one's opinion to fit with that of the majority, or at least, the belief that because something is believed by the majority, then it's somehow "more valid" than a belief you hold that only you have, or few people have.

E.g. (this is a new text): compliments and insults can affect how you see other people (or things). For instance, let's say you use the Internet and you see that a band is disliked by a very large proportion of people, to the extent it's pretty much a consensus (>90%). Will that affect how you see that band? The answer may be either yes/no (binary approach) or a spectrum of in-between values (fuzzy approach). As for the latter, we can say for instance that "1" represents total opinion integrity (can be represented with the element of ice, but this is for a different page... or perhaps even this page but in the future): if you had an opinion of that band before, uh, "reading the comments", then even after reading those overwhelmingly negative comments, your opinion of that band stays exactly the same as before. 0 is absolute lack of integrity (can be represented with the element of water), that is, even if you had an opinion before reading the comments (assuming you allow yourself to have an opinion of your own), after reading those comments your opinion is completely disintegrated and you completely adopt the opinion that you feel is the "consensus", leaving no trace of any prior opinion you may have had. 0.5 is an in-between value where your new opinion on the band after reading the comments is a perfect average of your prior opinion and the "consensus" of others. You may not dislike that band as much as the "consensus" but you'll also not like the band as much as you did before. 0.75 is an in-between value where it's mostly your prior opinion but is somewhat influenced by the comments you have read, 0.25 is an in-between value where it's mostly the "consensus" of others but not fully (some trace of your prior opinion may still be found), and so on. This concept has some relationship with Solomon Asch's conformity experiments. Since in Pangea, comment sections on the Internet are customizable, one can auto-induce a certain customized "consensus" and strengthen one's own opinion about a certain thing.

12.16: Opinions about Gaia

Pangeans, as well as the media contained within it (e.g. books, podcasts etc.), have a variety of opinions about Gaia. As expected, of course. Here are some:

1: Gaia is good.
1.1: Better than Pangea.
1.2: More or less the same as Pangea.
1.2.1: Overall.
1.2.2: Not overall, both Gaia and Pangea have their pros and cons. They're different.
1.3: But not as good as Pangea.
1.3.1: Gaia has potential to become as good as Pangea.
1.3.2: Gaia won't become as good as Pangea in the foreseeable future.
2: Gaia is so-so.
2.1: But still better than Pangea.
2.2: More or less the same as Pangea.
2.2.X: Pretty much the same as 1.2.X
2.3: Not as good as Pangea.
2.3.X: Pretty much the same as 1.3.X
3: Gaia is bad.
3.1: But still better than Pangea (which in this view, is considered very bad)
3.2: More or less the same as Pangea.
3.2.X: pretty much the same as 1.2.X
3.3: Pangea is better than Gaia.
3.3.X: pretty much the same as 1.3.X

First draft as some possible arguments:

1: Gaians have a better society because they are "closer to nature": Pangeans are corrupted and can't find societal harmony, because they refuse to find an agreement other than the official truth. Gaian societies are more stable and uniform, and the ideologies Gaians created are more harmonious, natural and beneficial to society.
1.1: However, despite that, Pangeans shouldn't try to be like Gaians.
1.2: Pangeans should try to be like Gaians, and settle on one Pangean culture and values that go beyond "official truth" or "work/free time distinction" (the only two things that vaguely resemble a distinct Pangean identity, and even then, there's plenty of media in Pangea that rejects the idea of Pangean work/free time distinction).
1.R1: "You're perfectly right, the fact that Gaian societies can come to agreements like those makes societies more harmonious and cohesive, unlike Pangean society where everyone seems to live in their own separate reality! Gaians have a true community, unlike us. I envy them".
1.R2: "No, you're idealizing Gaian society. It may seem more harmonious, but the reality is that such 'harmony' is based on fear, violence and persecutions. Minorities are oppressed in Gaia, in some countries even killed. That 'harmony' is artificial and it's not even as harmonious as you say. Pangea is better because, despite all our flaws, people with minority opinions are safe here. I don't even know what the majority opinions are in Pangea, maybe they don't even exist, and this is to say, everyone can live safely regardless of their opinions, unlike in Gaia.
1.R3: "The fact that Gaians try to encourage uniformity has pros and cons. A pro may be more social cohesion, a stronger sense of identity, but a con is persecution of minorities. The Pangean approach also has pros and cons: a pro may be more safety for everyone, a con is that individuals are more isolated and the sense of community, while existing, is less spontaneous."
2: Pangea and Gaia have different societies, with different characteristics, it's difficult to say which one is better.
2.1: Safety for minorities is a pro.
2.1.R1: "Agreed"
2.1.R2: "Nope"
2.1.R2.1: "It's important for a society to have a scapegoat, it's an essential societal function. By allowing minorities to live safely, you lack a group of people to blame for societal ills. A society cannot handle such lack. It's important to actually harm minorities instead of just pretending to, like we do in Pangea. Gaians have a better understanding of how to build a harmonious society: making life hell for minorities is what gives the majority a sense of power and satisfaction. It'd be hypocritical to deny it.
2.1.R2.1.R1: "Society doesn't need a scapegoat, that's just immoral. Let everyone live safely!"
2.1.R2.1.R2: "Society does need a scapegoat, you're right about that from a psychological perspective, but simulations are good enough. Pangea has nailed it!"
2.2: Safety for minorities is a con.
2.2.1: People need an enemy to persecute, as that functions as a scapegoat, a normal aspect of social psychology. In Pangea, it's illegal to actually persecute people the way people do in Gaia. In Pangea, you can only join communities where you can feel a sense of superiority to others, in those communities you can say that you want to torture, kill and/or enslave those you hate. The feeling to be in such a community is so empowering, so reality, but you can't actually harm others. In Gaia, however, people are free to do so. In Islamic countries, people are free to persecute homosexuals, even kill them; in other countries, it's perfectly ok to ruin a person's life for their religion, opinions, and in some places nowadays you can even arrest someone for their ethnicity and put them in detention camps! Gaians are actually more free than Pangeans when it comes to such transgressions!
2.2.1.T: Official truth: in Gaia, the right to harm people for reasons such as being homosexual or imprisoning people for arbitrary reasons is generally granted only to some classes, such as police officers and those working for the government. Regular citizens do not have such freedom and it would go against the Gaian laws.
2.2.1.T.R1: "Fuck off, Pangean government, you're ruining my narrative!"
2.2.1.T.R2: "Exactly!!! Regular Gaians are actually less free than Pangeans!"
2.2.1.R1: "In Pangea we don't allow that degeneracy. It's fine to pretend, but actually harming others like they do in Gaia shouldn't be allowed".
2.2.1.R2: "It's not ok to harm people like that, and Pangea is wrong in allowing people to roleplay such scenarios, as those wicked ideas built into our minds. Gaia is what will happen if Pangea keeps allowing such shows!"
2.2.1.R2.R1: "Chill, pal! Pangea has had such shows for at least two thousand years. People know it's fictional"
2.2.1.R3: "Agreed, it's important to have an enemy and be able to actually harm them, instead of just having simulacra. That's why Gaian societies are more cohesive: violence towards scapegoats is needed, even though that may be an unpleasant truth to accept."
2.2.1.R4: "I agree it's important to have an enemy to hate, a Nemesis if you will, but come on, it doesn't have to be real to be effective! Pangean simulacra are good enough, there's no need to put actually cut people's heads off to feel like your life has a purpose! That's why we have fake public executions: to calm people's nerves. But again, it doesn't have to be real, come on! Gaians indulge in too much excess!"
2.2.R1: "I agree, safety for minorities is a con. But safety for everyone is a con. We should strive to make life for everyone as dangerous, poor and unpleasant as possible. This will lead to the survival of the fittest and generate a better offspring. If you think the majority shouldn't be oppressed in the same way as the minority, you don't understand how suffering causes strength."
2.2.R1.R1: "Agreed"
2.2.R1.R2: "You, and the people who think like you, are the only people who should be unsafe"
2.2.R1.R3: "You should be the only one kept in safety, so the rest of us can become stronger"
2.2.R1.R4: "We should make lives more dangerous for everyone, you say? I think humankind should go extinct, so let's hope nuclear war will bring forth this ideal state"
2.3: Wish fulfillment in free time is a pro
2.3.1: Having everything you want is good because it increases satisfaction, happiness, and it means your life is better. 2.4: Wish fulfillment in free time is a con
2.4.1: Having everything you want makes you weak, and unable to handle stress or dissatisfaction.
2.4.1.1: However, there should be a limit to what happens to you against your will. Gaia is too unregulated (though it's better than Pangea in some areas).
2.4.1.2: And there should be no limit to what can happen to you against your will, nor should there be a limit on what you can do to others against their will. It's the survival of the fittest. The strong should rule and the weak should be ruled.
2.4.1.2.1: Gaia is perfect in that regard, it's a lot more natural. The strong are meant to rule!
2.4.1.2.1.R1: "But Pangea is not any different from that! The strong, that is, the government, rules over the weak - the citizens. It's just that the government gives us a certain type of society"
2.4.1.2.2: If anything, Gaia is not ruthless enough. There should be a lot more wars, violence and genocides in Gaia, to eradicate the weak. Only the strong should survive.
3: Pangea is a better society compared to Gaia.
3.1: However, despite of that, Gaians shouldn't try to become like Pangeans.
3.1.1: Because it's good to have variety in cultures. Gaian societies, while worse than Pangea, should have a place somewhere.
3.1.2: Because the transition from a Gaian to a Pangean-like culture would have disastrous effects, especially if done too quickly.
3.2: Gaians should try to be like Pangeans.
3.3: Pangea is better than Gaia because in Gaia they burn people alive when they reach 64 years of age.
3.3.T: Official truth: this is false, there is no such practice in Gaia.
3.4: Gaians should very slowly transition into a Pangean-like society.
4: Both Gaia and Pangea suck a lot!
4.1: Because they're not a solipsistic virtual reality where everyone has everything they want!
4.1.1: Pangea is better than Gaia because at least it has "free time". It's only work time that sucks.
4.1.2: Both suck a lot! Pangea is not better than Gaia: the existence of free time is irrelevant when you're forced to do a repetitive task that you don't want to do during work time just to earn money that you'll use in your free time!
4.2: Both suck a lot because there's not enough violence and suffering!
4.2.1: Pangea is better because the causal isolation means everyone pretty much lives in their own bubble, which makes life meaningless and artificial. Gaian life is too authentic.
4.2.2: Gaia is better because there's a lot more active suffering, genocides, wars, persecutions. Minorities are actually persecuted, rather than in Pangea where it's all a fake show done by paid actors for the entertainment of the paying customers. I want real violence and repression!
4.3: Pangea sucks because everything is fake, and Gaia sucks because children at schools are forced to put living worms inside their underwear.
4.3.T: Official Truth: not "everything" is fake in Pangea. While the sensorial experience of a wish is considered sufficient for a wish to be fulfilled, many things in Pangea are in fact real. Also, it is false that Gaian schools force their students to put living worms inside their underwear.
4.3.R1: "It's actually a good thing that Gaian schools force their students to put living worms inside their underwear. In Pangea you can't do that"
4.4: Pangea sucks because it's too fake, Gaia sucks because it's too real. An in-between would be nice.
4.5: Gaian schools have surveillance cameras that constantly spy on students, and if a student misbehaves, there will be poisoned arrows shot from the cameras who'll pierce the student, killing them.
4.5.T: Official Truth: this is false. None of that has ever happened.
4.5.1: That's a good thing, though. Killing students with poisoned arrows is better than letting our youth smash things in the rage rooms, vandalize the walls of the graffiti club or set things on fire in the pyro club. Discipline must be enforced, or the students will become like they are in Pangea! Gaia sucks in a lot of ways but at least they discipline our youth better than we do!
4.5.1.T: Official Truth: Gaian schools do not kill students with poisoned arrows (or in any other way) for misbehaving. Pangean students smashing things in rage rooms, spray painting certain walls and setting certain things on fire are dedicated services during lunch time and those behaviors are not allowed outside of their specific designated areas.
4.5.1.T.R1: Shut up, you're literally the reason why our society is such a freak show! BAN THE RAGE ROOMS AND THE PYRO CLUBS!

12.17: How to use a pen and a paperclip

In Pangea, there is media (e.g. books, videos, podcasts, shows etc.) where people brainstorm on possible uses of everyday items. One of these is the "how to use a pen and a paperclip" media. In case they suggest something dangerous, a "context warning" is shown, telling people that some of the suggestions are dangerous. Pangea never tells you "don't do this", it just tells you "this is dangerous", and explains the risks, consequences etc. of that action. Here are some ideas presented in such media (note: there is media that does not suggest the dangerous options, media that suggests ONLY the dangerous options, as well as media that suggests both)

Category 1: anything

1: Don't use them at all.
2: Throw away the paperclip since you don't need it, and use the pen to write something.

Category 2: you MUST use them both!

1: Insert the paperclip up your ass, and use the pen to write something.
2: Put the paperclip and then pen in the microwave, and feel the thrill of the impending danger.
3: Cook the paperclip and the pen, producing toxic fumes from the combustion of the ink and plastic.
3.1: Inhale the fumes.
3.1.1: Deeply.
3.1.2: Normally.
3.2: Run away as fast as possible and leave your house!
4: Insert the paperclip up your ass and use the pen to stab your own eyes.
5: Cut your skin with the paperclip, just like someone who does self-harm, put the pen in that blood and use your blood to write something with the pen.
6: Insert the pen up your vagina (if you have one), and the paperclip up your ass.
7: Melt the paperclip and put the molten material on your ass.
8: Melt the paperclip and drink the molten material.
9: Put the pen and paperclip in the freezer.
9.1: And leave them there.
9.2: And put the frozen pen and paperclip up your ass.
10: Put the paperclip up your ass and the pen inside your left shoe, and then go outside like that, and see if anybody notices.
11: Put the pen inside your left shoe, the paperclip inside your right shoe, go outside like that and see if anybody notices.
12: Break the pen, extract the ink from it, dip the paperclip in the ink and use it to paint your face so that you can look like a warrior!

12.18: Exterius

Exterius is a concept that refers to "catch-all out-group terms": when someone uses a word to refer to anyone who is not part of their group (however that group is defined and conceptualized), usually with negative connotations. In some (not all, of course) interpretations this "Exterius" is not just an abstract concept but may also be anthropomorphized, like an evil god or a demon/dragon-like entity who lurks in the immediate vicinity of people, making people perceive anyone different from them as "evil", because what they see in the people who are different from them... is Exterius! In some non-anthropomorphic interpretations, Exterius may just be an abstract concept.

Some Pangean media defines "Exterius" as the synthesis of all one does not identify oneself with, and what one wants to avoid to be. Then, anyone who is different from oneself in certain ways will be called with a certain word, usually with negative connotations. There is not just one single word for this concept, different Pangean media may call it differently. In this section, it will be called "Exterius", just to give it a name.

For example, some people (both in Gaia and in Pangea, though it's more common in Gaia, as Pangean social media is more diverse in thought) have experienced in online "political" (or even just social/cultural, the distinctions are very blurry on social media) discussions, to be called "far-left" by some people and "far-right" by others. One interpretation (which may be explored in a different section) is that one is indeed far-left and far-right simultaneously (likely this interpretation can be argued more easily accepting the horseshoe theory as valid). However, in this section, the following interpretation is given: one is not far-left nor far-right, but to be called that way is simply because the one who is doing the calling sees "Exterius" in the person who is called negatively. In the context of online "political" discussions on social media, generally speaking, those calling others "far-left" identify themselves as right-wing, whereas those calling others "far-right" identify themselves as left-wing. The most remarkable example is National Socialism (a.k.a. Nazism), an ideology that seems to absorb (or emanate, depending on your view) a huge amount of Exterian energies. Thus, those who self-identify as left-wing call Nazism "far-right", those who self-identify as right-wing call Nazism "far-left", those who self-identify as liberals or libertarians call Nazism "authoritarian", those who self-identify as centrists call Nazism "extremism" and so on. What one calls Nazism is among the best indicators of what one self-identifies as, unless one sees Nazism as a good thing, in which case they may categorize Nazism in the same manner as they categorize themselves. Basically, unless one explicitly endorses Nazism, if one says "Nazism is X", it's pretty much guaranteed that the one who uttered that sentence self-identifies as the extreme opposite of X. Interestingly, this also applies to religion: in order to discredit a particular religion, one may declare that the Nazis were: atheists, Christians, "pagans", or "occultists", depending on which religion one wants to discredit through "guilt by association". In Pangean media, additional claims are made alongside those, for example that Hitler is an alien, or an avatar of a Hindu god (said opinion also exists in Gaian media). A weaker (compared to the other four) argument that can be used to discredit Islam through "guilt by association with Nazism" is to point out that Hitler, while not a Muslim himself, had a generally positive opinion about Islam. Of course, "Exterius" goes beyond the simplistic left-right spectrum that is popular on social media in the 2010's and 2020's. It affects religion, and many other things, and has affected people for millennia. "Exterius", simply put, is a catch-all term for anyone who is different from oneself. Out-group homogeneity (seeing the out-group as "more or less all the same") plays a huge factor in this. For the Christians, Exterius is the term "pagan" (which, at least originally, meant "anyone who is not Christian"), for the Ancient Greeks it was "barbarian" and so on. Highly Exterian reasoning commits a logical fallacy known as "fallacy of the undistributed middle", such as, for example, "fascism is bad, X is bad, therefore, X is fascist" (you can replace "fascist" with any other Exterian word, the structure is identical). Here is a tentative list of some groups of people, followed by what they call Exterius (the terms for the Exterius I'll give may be nouns or adjectives, doesn't matter). Note that this is based on Gaian patterns, Pangean media also contains Exterian terms but they can be more diverse:

Ancient Greeks/Romans: Barbarian
Christians: Pagan, Satanists, Satanic, sinner, disbeliever, infidel etc.
Muslims: kafir (disbeliever), kufr (disbelief), shirk (polytheism), mushrik (polytheist), haram (forbidden/sinful) etc.
Psychiatrists: mentally ill, mental illness, mental disorder etc.
Nazis: Jews (yes, even when one is indeed not Jewish, and this happens even in modern times from people who follow ideologies that are more or less similar to Nazism)
Jews: gentiles, goyim
Left-wingers: far-right
Right-wingers: far-left, "woke" etc.
Centrists: extremism
Anarchists: statism
Capitalists: socialism
Socialists: capitalism
Liberal: authoritarian
Neo-Pagans: (not always, but often) Christianity, Satanism, "latent Christianity" etc. (the claim of some Neo-Pagans that "Pagans don't worship Satan, that's what Christians do" is IMHO one of the most mindblowing instances of a situation Exterius manifests)
Vegans: Carnists, Corpse Eaters, Animal Abusers etc. (the interesting thing to note is that these insults are sometimes used against vegetarians, who do not eat meat... this seems to provide more evidence in favor of the idea that "catch-all out-group terms" are so broad to encompass literally anyone who is different from oneself, making these terms highly inaccurate yet highly loaded in affective/emotional undertones).
Omnivores(???): (I need to do more research about this one, loool)
[insert nationality]: foreigners
Pangean nationalists/Demichronists: foreigners, Achronists
---I may add others as soon as they come to my mind

Note that I'm not saying here that all people in those groups use those words in that way, I'm just saying it's a relatively frequent phenomenon, and for certain groups of people, Exterius may be known by certain names. Note that this is one specific interpretation of what goes on when someone uses a catch-all out-group term onto someone else. Due to the variety of interpretations across Pangean media, there is also media that offers various kinds of other interpretations: psychological, sociological, theological, metaphysical, spiritual etc but those may be on separate sections. These other interpretations may or may not invoke abstract entities. For example a more naturalistic, psychological interpretation may focus on the fact that these are thought patterns happening in someone's mind (initially ignoring the question of how the mind is conceptualized as that is its own can of worms), whereas an evolutionary psychology interpretation may focus on trying to explain why these thought patterns arise in the first place, seeking answers in ancient humans and primates. A theological interpretation may declare that these thought patterns are caused by God (or the gods/some gods/one god among many), or that these thoughts patterns are themselves divine entities (or emanations of one or more divine entities), or that we as humans are God (i.e. collectively, all humans are one God) or gods (i.e. individually, each human is a different deity). As always, the "same" thing can be interpreted in many ways in Pangean media, due to the saturation of interpretations for literally everything.

In its most extreme form, Exterius is what is blamed for all of society's problems. For example, some people may say that "the Jews" are behind all of society's problems, others would blame "wokeness", or "capitalism", or "Neo-Marxism" (or something along those lines), or "political correctness", "patriarchy", "systemic racism", "fascism", "postmodernism", "globalism", "atheism", "Satan", "social media", "religion", "immigration", "individualism" etc. Basically, all problems in a society are identified with one single cause, and the meaning of the words used to refer to that cause are stretched so broadly that they pretty much refer to anyone or anything outside of one's own group, losing the original, more specific meaning. Alongside the Gaian complaints (which also exist in Pangea), some media in Pangea blames things that Gaians wouldn't usually blame: some Pangean media for example blames hugs for everything bad in the world, claiming that in order to restore the "peaceful times before humans came into the world" (some media in Pangea claims that before humankind existed, there was no suffering, no predation etc. but the official truth says that archeological evidence suggests otherwise), hugs must be prohibited. Some add that in order to make sure that nobody hugs each other, surveillance cameras must be installed and all human interaction should be strictly monitored. Some Murdakists blame yellow t-shirts for everything bad that happens in the world whereas others say that wearing yellow t-shirt is really bad and should be punished (some say "with death") but that yellow t-shirts are not the cause of every ill in the world. Some tomatophobes says tomatoes are to blame for all the bad things in the world and suggest prohibiting tomatoes and so on. This can provide a very comforting narrative for an individual. It follows that Exterius, if anthropomorphized, is an evil entity, or at least an entity that appears evil to the observer, as well as a scapegoat. A form of monotheism declaring that Exterius is the only deity would be a form of dystheism, according to some interpretations. According to some interpretations, however, Exterius is not necessarily an evil entity. It can be, of course, but there's also another interpretation of the morality of Exterius. Exterius can be seen as either benevolent or "useful" in a Machiavellian way. It can be seen as benevolent if one or more people genuinely believe that the homogeneized out-group poses a threat, and if they conceptualize Exterius not as the out-group itself but as the awareness (or, alternatively, the entity that causes the awareness) that the out-group is actually just one, evil group. The awareness of that is (considered) good, and so, Exterius may be seen as a benevolent deity, bringer of knowledge. On the other hand, a non-sincere person who wants to manipulate others for his/her own gain may see Exterius as a useful instrument, ally or collaborator. This means, a form of monotheism that claims that Exterius is the only deity that exists, is not necessarily a form of dystheism. I'll soon update this page to reflect this new discovery.

A perfect very recent example in Gaia (there would be too many examples in Pangea, by definition) Donald Trump calling Anthropic "a radical left, woke company" because they refused to let the military use their AI models to potentially kill people or cause harm. This is a perfect example because it's not some random person who lives in their mom's basement who says stuff online because they're bored... no, it's the ruler of an actual country. Some media in Pangea says Trump is totally insane, some media idolizes him just like some people in Gaia do, some say he's controlled by aliens, some have a nuanced opinion on him, some say he's evil, some say he's saving the USA, some say his actions have mixed consequences etc. as expected, just like for everything else and everyone else, there is literally every opinion and claim possible about Trump in Pangea. Of course, Trump's rhetorics is nothing new: throughout history, using negative homogeneized out-group terms to refer to "anyone I disagree with" was and still is the norm, but seeing an example so recent right before our eyes is a perfect illustration of the concept of Exterius manifesting in our times.

Antonym: Interius. Interius is what someone would call their "fellow in-group members".

Manifestations of Exterius

1: Exterius does not exist at all and therefore it's not true that some people generalize and homogeneize all out-groups into one negative group.
2: Exterius exists only as an abstract concept and nothing more. No realm of ideas (it doesn't exist).
3: Exterius exists as an abstract concept, and like all abstract concepts, it's contained within a metaphysical realm of ideas
4: There is a metaphysical realm which contains some (but not all) ideas:
4.1: Exterius does not exist in that metaphysical realm
4.2: Exterius exists in that metaphysical realm
4.3: That metaphysical realm only contains ideas that are accepted by:
4.3.1: at least one individual (and therefore Exterius exists)
4.3.2: at least one subculture (how large that must be is subjective)
4.3.3: at least one mainstream culture in the world
4.3.4: it must be mainstream worldwide, or in most countries
4.3.5: it must be accepted by every individual... bar babies, people in coma etc.
4.3.6: it must even be accepted by babies and people who are in a coma or vegetative states, by everyone (and therefore Exterius does not exist)
5: Exterius exists in a metaphysical realm of ideas but also manifests itself in the real world: it manifests whenever one generalizes and homogeneizes all out-groups into one, negative group.
5.1: Exterius is not anthropomorphized: it has no human-like mind or intent.
5.2: Exterius is anthropomorphized: it's an evil entity that has some kind of nefarious intent against humankind. It can easily be conceptualized as a dragon/demon-like entity that instills fear and hatred in humans.
5.2.x: (anthropomorphized) Exterius and human beliefs
5.2.1: (Anexteriusism???) Exterius does not exist, regardless of human behavior.
5.2.2: Exterius ex hominibus: Exterius does not exist if humans do not homogeinize all out-groups negatively, it exist if humans do it. So, in at least one interpretation of #5.2.2, Exterius' existence is supported by certain psychic energies coming from humans. Thus, in some ways, humans have created Exterius, and may also be able to defeat Exterius if:
5.2.2.1: There exists at least one individual who does not homogeinize all out-groups negatively. Babies and people in coma do not do that, and therefore Exterius does not exist, and has never existed.
5.2.2.2: There exists at least one subculture who does not homogeinize all out-groups negatively.
5.2.2.3: There exists at least one mainstream subculture in the world who does not do that
5.2.2.4: It is uncommon worldwide to generalize all-outgroups like that.
5.2.2.5: Nobody generalizes like that
5.2.3: Potestas Exterioris ex hominibus: Exterius exists regardless of human beliefs, but it only has power (over humans and/or in general) if humans generalize all-out groups negatively (as for how many humans, look at #4.3.x). A possible interpretation is that Exterius gets its power from the psychic energies of humans, acting in some ways as a psychic vampire. When humans no longer generalize out-groups into one negative group, then Exterius still exists but becomes powerless to influence the lives of humans or to actively manifest to humans in this world.
5.2.4: Exterius Terrae ex hominibus: similar to 'potestas exterioris ex hominibus' in that humans categorizing out-groups into one negative groups change one of Exterius' characteristics, but here, instead of the amount of power, what changes is its 'location' so to speak - Exterius exists regardless of human beliefs, but when humans do not generalize like that, that deity remains in a metaphysical realm, unable to affect our world, whereas if humans generalize all out-groups into one bad group, then the psychic energies coming from humans act as a way to 'summon' Exterius into our world. The act of summoning Exterius may be intentional or accidental (or perhaps even something in-between). When humans stop generalizing in that way, Exterius leaves Earth and returns to the metaphysical realm, waiting to be summoned again. Exterius does not necessarily need to be 'summoned' by the entire society in order to be summoned, it can also be invoked by a small sub-culture, or even just an individual. Of course, in that case, Exterius is 'weaker' and has less control over our world or society, because of the lower amount of psychic energies that deity can use to empower itself. In that case, the area where Exterius manifests and the intensity of the manifestation is smaller compared to a situation where there is a widespread moral panic about anyone who does not belong to the in-group (of course, Exterius manifests itself more pervasively in monocultural/monoreligious and/or monoethnic countries, as it becomes easier to generalize about "outsiders" or "anticonformists" within that kind of societal structure).
5.2.5: Cognitio Exterioris ex hominibus: Exterius exists and has power over humans regardless of whether or not humans homogeinize out-groups, humans can only either be ignorant of Exterius and its power, or be aware of it. This, along with 'anexteriusism', is one of the two options (so far) where not only the existence of Exterius but its characteristics (e.g. power/location) as well does not change based on human behavior. Though, it is unclear what power may Exterius even have over humans if humans do not homogeneize all out-groups into one bad group.
6: Exterius as one deity among many
7: Exterius as the only deity that exists (a form of dystheism/monotheism)
7.1: Distinction between divine (Exterius: out-group) and profane (Interius: in-group). Divinity only exists in people, ideas and habits that belong to the "one bad out-group". Since those are considered bad and evil, divinity is also considered evil, making this a form of dystheism. The profane, that which is not sacred, is considered good and morally correct.

Exterian vs non-Exterian approaches to out-groups

An Exterian approach to out-groups is to consider all members of out-groups in the same, unified, negative out-group. It's an approach that can be best described with the motto "you're either with me or against me". Since the out-group is unified, someone who practices an Exterian approach is highly likely to refuse to make any distinction between various out-groups, since they're considered all the same (out-group homogeneity). Attempts from outsiders to convince the Exterianist to make distinctions between out-groups may lead the Exterianist to say something along the lines of "it's a distinction without a difference!". For example, some of those who self-identify as left-wing may call "far-right" (or "fascist", or "Nazi") anyone they disagree with, or for example, some libertarians or anarcho-capitalists may call anyone who disagree with them "socialist", which, in the context of their conversations, literally means "whenever the government does something". Some Christians (those who practice Exterianism, i.e. the very conservative Christians) may call anything outside of Christianity (or outside Abrahamic religions) "Pagan" or "Satanic", people in certain ideologies usually associated with the name "right-wing" may call anyone they disagree with "far-left" or "woke" and so on. Well, I've put the list above, no need to list all examples. Conversely, a non-Exterian approach may (or may not) consider the various out-groups negatively, but it does not unify them into a single category, conceding that the various out-groups are different groups, instead of just one single coalition of like-minded villains. A fuzzy conceptualization of Exterian vs non-Exterian approaches is a fuzzy categorization where there are various degrees of "Exterian-ness". The higher the level of "Exterian-ness", the broader is the range of worldviews that is associated with the practicioner's arch-enemy. Some (though not all) metaphysical views on this may claim that Exterianists carry a certain energy around them, that may be tentatively called "Exterian energy", some may claim that the Exterianists do not themselves carry such energy but that they summon and/or make use of it, some may say that the Exterianists are summoning (or are possessed by to some extent) Exterius itself, some other interpretations may deny the existence of such Exterian energy altogether, or even deny the existence of Exterius as an entity. I may list all views on this sooner or later.

Exbolus

Some Pangean media defines "Exbolus" as some sort of antonym of "Exterius", in that "Exbolus" refers to when someone divides the out-groups into various categories, not necessarily allied with each other (they may be in conflict with each other too), and not belonging to the same umbrella category. An example of this may be (according to some) the concept of "seven deadly sins", seven sins that are distinct from each other and may not necessarily form a united group allied with each other. The more one divides out-groups into more categories, the more Exbolian one is. For example, an Exbolian Muslim, instead of referring to someone or some worldview as "Satanic", "Pagan" or "disbeliever" as an Exterian Muslim would, the Exbolian Muslim would refer to someone or some worldview as for example "Wiccan", "Hindu", "Shinto", "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Jain", "Thelemite" etc. and would only call something or someone "Satanist" or "Pagan" when they're actually like that. An Exbolian Ancient Roman, instead of saying "Barbarian", would say "German", "Gaul", "Persian" etc. someone on social media instead of saying "far-left" or "far-right" they may use more neutral term that accurately descript the other person's worldview and so on. Exterius and Exbolus may be viewed as either a binary where one is either Exterian or Exbolian (binary approach), or as a spectrum of in-betweens between the two polarities (fuzzy approach). An Exterian Demichronist (someone who agrees and supports the ideology of Demichronism), instead of saying "Achronist countries" may say "Sudhurland", "Centralia", "Aurora", "The United States of America", "Russia", "China" etc. Just like Exterius, Exbolus can be seen as a mere abstract concept, an energy that one can use through magick means, a deity, a key from the collective unconscious to unlock certain abilities (through magick or even just bland secular psychology, depending on one's aesthetical preferences, or other methods) etc. Some may as well want to master the whole spectrum to attain a greater power (if so they believe, and if that's what they want), while others may just dismiss this whole thing as total non-sense...

An interesting case is the Psychiatric one... a psychiatrist (or even just one who adheres to the/a psychiatric worldview) may call someone "autistic", "bipolar", "schizophrenic" etc. instead of "mentally ill", but they're all just different manifestations of what psychiatrists call "mental illness". So, this is in some ways a hybrid situation between Exterius and Exbolius! Not to mention, the same person can be (more) Exterian in one case and (more) Exbolian in another, depending on the situation, it's not necessarily a constant. There's complexity.

When Exterius manifests, then...

Note: this also applies to Exbolus (though one may also adhere to a worldview where these examples may apply to Exterius only, or to Exbolius only, or neither), but I'll only make examples with Exterius to save space and avoid being too repetitive.

When Exterius manifests, then...

1: Nothing, Exterius does not exist (at all), and therefore cannot manifest, and people cannot homogeneize out-groups
2: Nothing, Exterius is just an abstract concept that refers to the tendency of (some) people to homogeneize out-groups (usually in a negative fashion). When a person does that, that's called "Exterius", and that's about it. Nothing more.
3: When someone homogeneizes out-groups, s/he's summoning Exterian energies.
3.1: That person actively makes use of Exterian energies.
3.2: That person just summons Exterian energies, which may keep lingering around in the area. If a lot of people homogeneize out-groups, then the accumulation of Exterian energies may cause consequences, which may be societal, metaphysical/theological, or both, depending on the interpretation.
3.2.1: The accumulation of Exterian energies in a close area may lead to societal and/or metaphysical/theological consequences, but humans are just passive absorbers of such energies, and cannot actively use or manipulate them to reach their goals.
3.2.2: The accumulation of Exterian energies in a close area may lead to societal and/or metaphysical/theological consequences, and skilled magicians/propagandists may take advantage of such accumulation of Exterian energies to advance their own agenda, in such a way that would either be impossible or much more difficult without the accumulation of such energies caused by a large amount of people homogeinizing out-groups.
4: When someone homogeinizes out-groups, s/he's summoning Exterius itself.
5: Exterius lurks around regardless of what humans do, but when someone homogeinizes out-groups, s/he's giving power to Exterius through human psychic energies. The more people homogeinize out-groups (and in some interpretation, even the more intensely people do that), the more Exterius is powered. An accumulation of psychic energies directed towards Exterius in a certain area leads to Exterius being more powerful in that area.
6: When someone homogeneizes out-groups, s/he's summoning Exterius into their body and/or their mind. The level of agency and free will a person still retains after being "possessed/influenced" by Exterius varies according to the interpretation, and even in the same interpretation, it may (or may not) also vary on a case by case basis.
7: Exterius is present inside everyone regardless of what they do, but when someone homogeinizes out-groups, Exterius awakens inside themselves.
8: Exterius is present inside everyone regardless of what they do, but when someone homogeinizes out-groups, that person becomes aware of the presence of Exterius inside those who are considered "out-groups". In this interpretation, Exterius may (or may not) be conceptualized like an evil god or a demon/dragon-like entity who lurks in the immediate vicinity of people, making people perceive anyone different from them as "evil", because what they see in the people who are different from them... is Exterius!
9: (same as 3 but with reverse causal relationship), when someone is exposed to (already existing) Exterian energies, s/he starts homogeinizing out-groups.
9.1: Exterian energies are a "natural" (i.e. in the sense of: as opposed to "artificial", not necessarily as opposed to "supernatural") part of the world, and it just happens that some areas or some people contain more Exterian energies than others, not as a consequence of human behaviors (unlike in #3), but rather as their cause.

Five categories of what an individual may be seen like through Exterian lenses

A and B are worldviews/groups/etc. that are Exterian to each other. In this example I'll use Christianity and Satanism, but any other pair of worldviews Exterian towards each other may work just as well.

Category 1: an individual self-identifies as an adherent to worldview A, and is recognized as such by even the most Exterian adherents of worldview A. E.g. a self-identified Christian in this category is recognized as a Christian by even the most Exterian Christians.
Category 2: an individual self-identifies as an adherent to worldview A, but is not recognized as such by the most Exterian adherents of worldview A, who label that individual as an adherent to worldview B. E.g. a self-identified Christian in this category is seen as a "Satanist" by the most Exterian Christians, due to slight differences in their worldview (extremely Exterian Christians will call anyone even with slightly different beliefs from them "Satanic"). A self-identified Satanist (no matter how Exterian or Exbolian), however, will not see such an individual as a Satanist, but rather, as a Christian.
Category 3: an individual who self-identifies as neither an adherent to worldview A nor worldview B. For example, a neo-pagan in most cases will not identify as a Christian nor as a Satanist (there are some who do, "Christo-Pagans" and "Satanic Pagans", but I'm not counting them in this example). The most Exterian Christians will call such a person a "Satanist", while the most Exterian Satanists will call such a person a "Christian", or something along those lines (the most Exterian Satanists call anything that even slightly deviates from their worldview "Christianity", even when it is clearly not Christian, even when the individual self-identifies as a Satanist, an extremely Exterian Satanist will call that individual "Heretical Christian" at best). Perhaps a better and more common example of this is in social media "political" discussions, where someone who neither identifies as "left-wing" nor as "right-wing" is called "far-right" by those who self-identify as "left-wing" and "far-left" by those who self-identify as "right-wing" (or some worldview associated with it, like "conservative"). Individuals in this category (3) find themselves simultaneously labelled as both of the pairs of worldviews that are Exterian to each other, even if by different groups of people.
Category 4: an individual who self-identifies as an adherent to worldview B but it seen as an adherent to worldview A by the most Exterian adherents to worldview B. Follows the same logic as Category 2.
Category 5: an individual who self-identifies as an adherent to worldview B and is seen as such even by the most Exterian adherents to worldview B. Follows the same logic as Category 1.

Inbolus (work in progress)

Inbolus is when one sees one's own in-group as a collection of different worldviews/groups rather than a single one. The two varieties of Inbolus may be 1: one sees themselves as belonging to a specific sub-group, or 2: one does not see themselves as belonging to a specific sub-group. Of course the various manifestations of Inbolus are the same as Exterius and Exbolus!

What can be done with Exterian Magick

Method 1 (M1): by homogeneizing out-groups you release/summon/absorb Exterian energies.

Possible directions:

D1: metaphysical -> self: absorbing Exterian energies. Imbibing oneself with Exterian energies.
D2: metaphysical -> physical: summoning Exterian energies into the environment.
D3: metaphysical -> other(s): casting Exterian energies into other people, who are the target of the spell.
D4: self -> physical: releasing Exterian energies from oneself into the environment.
D5: self -> other(s): similar to #D3 but the Exterian energies come from the self rather than a metaphysical realm.
D6: physical -> self: similar to #D1 but the Exterian energies one imbibes oneself with are already present within the environment.
D7: physical -> other(s): similar to #D3 (or #D5) but the Exterian energies are present within the environment rather than coming from either oneself or a metaphysical realm.
D8: other(s) -> self: sucking away the Exterian energies from others and absorbing them (presumably to become "more powerful" or something?).
D9: other(s) -> physical: taking away the Exterian energies from others and releasing them into the environment.

Note about "other(s)". One can make a distinction between "other(s): in-group (O:IG)" and "other(s): out-group (O:OG)". If the target is O:IG, then the implication of what Exterian energies do is either to make others "aware" of a certain threat/situation/conspiracy (if the magician/propagandist sincerely believes in it), or, if the magician/propagandists is not sincere, then the Exterian energies serve to manipulate people's minds for the magician/propagandist's benefit. If the target is O:OG, Exterian energies are conceptualized as a curse against the out-groups, making this version of Exterian magick a form of baneful ("black") magick.

Possible axiom 1: Exterian energies change "reality" by modifying the mind of the target. Who is the target (can be more than one of the following)?

T1: self.
T2: other(s).
T3: the environment/reality/etc.

#T3 may fit into a panpsychist worldview where consciousness is a fundamental property of all things, or into an idealistic worldview where qualia are all that exist. Object permanence (i.e. the permanence of objects even when they are not seen by anyone) may be allowed in an idealistic worldview by postulating the existence of a conscious, cosmic divine entity that perceives everything (though not necessarily with human-like perception, since perception doesn't have to be human-like in order to create object permanence under an idealistic worldview), so there is not really something that "is not seen by any conscious entity". #T3 may therefore be a conscious, cosmic divine mind, part of which may be modified through magick (or even by physical interaction with the world... after all, if you create or destroy something, due to the presence of object permanence, it will stay created or destroyed unless some other being interacts with it again).

Which way do you homogeneize out-groups?

1: In stereotypical, "commonly accepted" ways. E.g. "anyone I disagree with is a Nazi", or "everyone who's not from my country is a foreigner", etc.
1.1: Tautological homogeneization: e.g. "everyone who's not from my country is a foreigner". The word "foreigner" literally just means "someone who's not from the speaker's country". A tautological homogeneization may carry neutral or negative connotations but the word itself does not carry additional meaning, making the use of the word definitionally correct.
1.2: Non-tautological homogeneization: e.g. "anyone I disagree with is a Nazi". A "Nazi" (i.e. a National Socialist) is not "someone the speaker disagrees with". A "Nazi" is someone who adheres to National Socialist ideology. Because the word generally carries a very negative connotation, using it to refer to homogeneized out-group is very insulting and can be considered a form of Exterian magick. A non-tautological homogeneization consists in using a word incorrectly (from a definitional perspective) to refer to the homogeneized out-group.
2: In idiosyncratic, non-stereotypical ways. (again, can be tautological or non-tautological, but I've already explained what they mean so I won't repeat it again)
2.1: Because you genuinely feel that way.
2.2: You don't necessarily feel that way but you're trying to explore what is thinkable and maybe even playing "the devil's advocate", and see if there's any idiosyncratic conceptualization of homogeneized out-groups that may be useful to you.

Intent (similar to "target"):

1: To, say, convince yourself, or "expand your mind", on certain types of categorizations. By categorizing things in one way or another, your reasoning also changes, and that can affect your decision-making process. The magick here may consist in learning how to homogeneize out-groups in a careful, planned way to reach a certain goal.
2: To convince other people of something e.g. that some people pose a threat or are an enemy, and therefore attempt to affect their decision-making process as well, in various ways. This can be done to benefit yourself and/or to "benefit society" (regardless of whether you actually believe it or is merely rhetoric to convince others to perform a certain action that will eventually end up benefitting yourself... after all, the line between "awareness" and "illusion" may be far thinner than most would think). There can be various techniques to do this, and it certainly helps to be in a position of power and influence (though that is not strictly required, of course). A very common technique, right after homogeneizing out-groups in a negative manner, is to use "guilt by association".
3: To change "reality" in some way, especially by conceptualizing things as described under #T3 i.e. idealistic philosophy that has object permanence by the means of the existence of a conscious, divine cosmic entity that perceives everything, making sure that there's nothing that "is not perceived by any conscious entity".
3.1: By changing the "mind" of the cosmos, you are changing the characteristics of reality itself. One example of ritual of this category is the following: a "black" (baneful) magick with the intent of causing the cosmos to consider a certain group of people as an out-group, therefore causing misfortune to such group (as reality itself will feel hostility towards that group).

Update: Exterius and Interius vs "Label Broadness"

Exterius: homogeneization of out-groups. Interius: homogeneization of in-groups. Label Broadness: to what extent a certain label is applied. In the past I made the "mistake" of excessively relying on the assumption that when homogeneizing out-groups (especially in a negative manner), then the label was far more broad than when referring to an in-group. While that is true in the vast majority of cases, this philosophy project of this website is dedicated to exploring all thinkable thoughts, and therefore, "broad in-group" and "narrow (negative) out-group" should also be explored. In the future I will also add templates that do not refer to out-groups in a negative manner. Possible combinations:

1: Broad in-group: "generously" applying a label one identifies oneself with. E.g. a conservative Christian claiming that liberal, pro-LGBT Christians are also Christians, despite the strong disagreement on what ought to be allowed or accepted.
2: Narrow in-group: only labelling a narrow range of people/ideologies/thoughts/etc. as part of an in-group. E.g. a Laveyan Satanist claiming that anyone who does not stricly adhere to Lavey's views (e.g. several theistic Satanist sects, who get their views of Satan from elsewhere) is not a Satanist at all.
3: Broad (negative) out-group: what most of this page focuses on. E.g. "Nazi" meaning "anyone I disagree with" and that sort of stuff.
4: Narrow (negative) out-group: a reasoning along the lines of "only the worst of the worst deserve [label], since it's a very serious accusation [i.e. according to people of a certain worldview, at least]". And therefore, the negative out-group label is applied only in rare (or relatively rare) circumstances. Of this category there are two sub-distinctions: moral value narrow out-group and qualitative value narrow out-group:
4.1: Moral value narrow out-group: the negative out-group label is applied only in rare circumstances, only if someone is really evil. E.g. "Nazi" may be used to describe only someone who is really evil, or promotes really evil outcomes (even if that person didn't do anything other than promoting the awful outcome).
4.2: Qualitative value narrow out-group: the negative out-group label is applied only towards people who fit that label, regardless of how "evil" that person is. E.g. "Nazi" may be used to describe someone who believes in the superiority of the "Aryan" people, who promotes the persecution of homosexuals, disabled people, Slavic people, Romani, who promotes a specific form of eugenics, who believes that Germany is superior to every other country, who wants to restore Germany's pre-WWII territories (e.g. a "Nazi" would say that "Danzig" (Gdansk) should be a part of Germany again). Unlike the moral value narrow out-group, this category doesn't imply that an out-group term necessarily means "really evil", or "most evil", e.g. in this category, someone who is not a Nazi, say, a "white supremacist" from the USA, who has a worldview that is considerably different than that of a National Socialist (though social media discussions are rarely if ever nuanced enough to capture the distinctions), may be just as evil as a "Nazi", or even more evil, while not being a Nazi, because for instance, a "white supremacist" from the USA will declare that "white" people (likely not as defined as the US government, since that definition includes arabs and various middle eastern people, they likely mean various things e.g. north-western European, or perhaps various regions of Europe including Slavic and Balkan people... or something else... definitions may vary!) are "superior", whereas a National Socialist would just say that "Aryan" people are superior. "Aryan" is not the same as the concept of "white" found in the USA and/or other anglophone countries. There are other differences as well, but the point of the qualitative value narrow out-group is that the word that refers to an out-group will be used when definitionally correct. Note that this reasoning only applies to some words, because other out-group words have different characteristics. For instance, "pagan" originally referred to anyone who was not a Christian, so it was an out-group word right from the start. Then there are words that started with a meaning and ended up with another meaning e.g. "woke" originally referred to people who were aware of social injustices (e.g. discrimination, abuses towards entire groups) but the meaning changed into something totally unrecognizable and very vague and subjective. Now it pretty much means "anything/anyone I disagree with" (said by someone who self-identifies as "conservative" or "right-wing"). It's like the "right-wing" version of "Nazi". In the case of "pagan" or "woke", it is unclear how the qualitative narrow out-group category would interpret those words, or whether this category would apply to those words in the first place.

Broad in-group and narrow (negative) out-group are rarely encountered in Gaia. However, in Pangea, since you can read or listen to literally anything you want, you can easily read of listen to them if you want to. Plus, Pangean search engines are much more efficient than Gaian search engines, which, especially since the late 2010's, display SEO spam, and will actively ignore quotation marks for direct quote search. Pangean search engines will return exactly what you requested and will not ignore quotation marks, making searches on the Pangean Internet much faster and more efficient.

Exterian Magick Rituals

How to perform an Exterian magick ritual?

1: You can't, the "magical" part of this page is bullshit.
1.1: And so is "magic" in general, don't believe in that stuff.
1.2: "Magic" as practiced by experienced people who know what they do is real and effective, but this page is bullshit.
2: You can, but the methods are inaccessible to the general population. You'd need to be a person in a position of power who has a loyal audience and can use mass communication to influence the minds of people, therefore altering their psyche, and therefore being able to perform Exterian magick rituals (whether you see them as pure psychology/sociology, or something more metaphysical). In order to successfully perform an Exterian magick ritual, you have to "trick" the masses into either using your own categories at your own advantage, or to take advantage of existing categories and either make them more widespread, or change their connotations from negative to positive or vice-versa. This may or may not involve changing the definitions and/or words themselves. There are countless examples of Exterian magicians in recent times (and in history as well, obviously), I'll make just one: Elon Musk. Through the word "woke" (which is basically everything he disagrees with), he's increasing division and manipulating people in a way that is beneficial to himself. He's not the only magician that uses Exterian methods, by far, he's just one of the countless examples, of a wide variety of different ideologies. I named him purely for the sake of providing an example of an Exterian magician (and a skilled one at that!), not to single him out. However, it goes without saying that to practice this specific form of Exterian magick, you have to be influential, and therefore, as I said before, it's not accessible to the masses.
3: You can, and you don't even have to trick anyone other than you. You can practice Exterian magick on yourself without ever interacting with anyone. This may have some effects, such as:
3.1: You become aware of the arbitrariness of categorizations and how people are divided.
3.2: You create your own "unorthodox" categorizations and experiment with them to test various ideas and understand things more clearly.
3.3: You can interact with "Exterius" seeing it as its own entity (perhaps even conscious), and perform rituals with it, with some effects and consequences, such as:
3.3.b: same as 3.1, 3.2 and possibly other future "realizations", except that in this case, you don't discover them "yourself" but it's Exterius itself who teaches you this knowledge.
3.3.1: (more "paranormal" than the other scenarios) you can cause societal changes without ever interacting with anyone. It may be possible, though I suspect it'd require a huge amount of psychic energies and therefore such ritual is not available to be practiced by regular people, but there is a way: manipulate causation itself. That's a possible method, though potentially dangerous. Basically, causation manipulation is when you tell yourself (and/or possibly convince other people, if you're able to) that you have caused something to happen, or that someone else has caused something to happen. Causation manipulation is very easy to practice if you're in a position of power and have access to mass communication, but for an individual, it's more difficult. You can, however, induce yourself to believe that you have caused (or have the potential to cause) some event. For instance, with causation manipulation, if it happens that groups are categorized and vilified in a way that you like, you can induce yourself to believe that it happened because of you, because of some "psychic spell" that you have cast upon the place you live in. According to psychology, this is called "illusion of control", and psychiatry (in an Exterian fashion) applies negative labels (.g. "schizotypal" or "mentally ill") to those who have unorthodox causation beliefs, but I don't think psychiatry is some sort of "objective truth", just one among many ways to see the world, and in this page I won't say definitely either that what psychologists call "the illusion of control" is an illusion, nor will I say that it is real, as it's fundamentally impossible to prove it with 100% metaphysical certainty. So, both options i.e. that it is an illusion that one can induce oneself; or that it's something real; or some other option, e.g. that it is an illusion but that due to placebo effect or some other psychological cause it becomes "sort-of" real, especially (but not only) if you manage to convince most people of that. I may make a separate page for causation manipulation and all its implications.
3.4: Others? I'll see...

12.19: Should you keep using the Gaian Internet in the late 2020's?

In Pangea, there are books and various media that express an opinion on whether or not you should use the Gaian Internet in the late 2020's. The Pangean Internet is much better than the Gaian Internet when it comes to (lack of) censorship as well as "game preservation" and stuff like that. Furthermore, the police won't come knocking at your door if you write something naughty online (that would be causal contamination). However, privacy-wise, the Pangean Internet is only better than the Gaian Internet if you buy the more expensive (though still affordable) "ad-free" subscription. In Pangea, there are two main "tiers" of subscription, "ad-powered" and "ad-free". If you buy the "ad-powered" version, there are tons of ads everywhere, as well as tracking scripts. Not great for privacy. If you want to browse the Internet without ads, you can buy a more expensive Internet subscription (the "ad-free subscription"), which allows you to browse the Internet without ads, and the additional money is sent to the websites to help cover the bandwidth cost. The logic is exactly the same as the other Pangean logic: you pay, and you get your wish (browsing without ads) fulfilled. However, the "ad-free" subscription is still pretty affordable, and apart from the higher price, it doesn't feel any different from buying a regular service subscription. With this difference in mind, here are some opinions from the Pangean media regarding whether or not you should keep using the Gaian Internet in the late 2020's (coming soon). Note: as with every media in Pangea (especially books), there is media that promotes one singular view (for each view), as well as media that lists all possible views (those are called "opinions lists media" or something along the lines):

If you live in Gaia:

1: Yes, you should stop using the Internet
2: No, you should keep using the Internet
3: Do whatever you want, keep using it if you want to keep using it, stop using it if you want to stop using it
4: Comparative reasoning. If you stop using the Internet, then that means your life is entirely "offline". Both types of choices should be analyzed and compared.
4.1: Question: why stop using the Gaian Internet?
4.1.1: Censorship.
4.1.1.1: Bad idea. If a country censors a content on the Internet (e.g. sexuality/pornography, "offensive" content etc.), you're not going to find it offline either. If anything, the Internet is less censored than the offline environment.
4.1.1.2: Good idea. The Internet is increasingly censored and surveilled: the offline environment has the potential to have more freedom, especially between "matchers" (people who interact consensually in their free time, when they're not working).
4.1.2: Surveillance
4.1.2.1: Bad idea. Surveillance is not exclusive to the Internet. The Soviet Union had extreme surveillance even without the Internet.
4.1.2.1.1: The Internet allows way more surveillance capabilities than the Soviet Union ever had. It's just that the Soviet Union used violence against a much larger variety of speech and behaviors compared to most of the contemporary world. A government as violent as that of the Soviet Union combined with contemporary surveillance would be far more extreme than the Soviet Union originally was. So it's not true that the level of surveillance of the Internet is the same as that of the Soviet Union. It's much higher.
4.1.2.2: Good idea. The offline environment has pockets without surveillance.
4.1.2.2.1: But so does the Internet.
4.1.2.2.1.1: But perhaps not for long.
4.1.2.2.1.2: And perhaps it's going to stay that way. Some people will find ways to have anonymous communication even after ID age verification will become widespread.
4.1.3: Concept of "ownership" and "preservation of media". The Gaian Internet routinely deletes content, especially in two cases: intentional censorship, when the content (especially videogames) becomes "too old".
4.1.3.1: Bad idea. Holding on to the past to much holds one back and makes personal growth more difficult.
4.1.3.2: Good idea. It's good to hold on to past memories and use them as a foundation for future personal development. Plus, it's good to keep media.
4.1.3.3: It's a good idea to hoard as much offline content as possible, just in case something bad happens to the Gaian Internet (which should not be taken for granted).
4.1.4: Overstimulation and psychological influence of Gaian feeds.
4.1.4.1: It's becoming more and more difficult on the Gaian Internet to see only what you want to see, due to "feeds", "trending topics" etc. cluttering websites' homepages.
4.1.4.1.1: Just use less popular websites! There are millions of them!
4.1.4.1: Bad idea. You remove the overstimulation and replace it with what exactly? The powerful people control the information both online and offline.
4.1.4.1.1: Intentional offline media consumption. Only consume the media you want to consume and ignore the rest.
4.1.4.2: Good idea. Overstimulation is bad for the mind.
4.1.4.3: Bad idea. Overstimulation is good for the mind.
4.1.4.4: Bad idea. The governments and media agencies know what's good for you. Read it, look at it, don't ignore it.
4.1.4.5: Bad idea. It's good to know as much stuff as possible, and the Internet enables that.
4.1.4.6: Good idea. Spending too much time in front of a screen is bad.
4.1.4.7: Bad idea. Spending a lot of time in front of a screen is good.
4.1.4.7.1: It's the evolution of the human mind. Homo Sapiens is slowly evolving into Homo Informaticus, and having a lot of data inside your mind is good. Those with less information in their minds will be left behind
4.1.4.7.2: (a version of Luciferianism taken extremely literally) Light is good, and therefore staring at a source of light as long as possible is good! If you don't have the Internet, then stare at the Sun for as long as possible.
4.1.4.7.2.T: Official Truth: staring at the Sun for too long can damage your eyes permanently.
4.1.4.7.2.T.R1: The Pangean government promotes darkness! It's evil! THIS GOVERNMENT IS EVIL!!!
4.1.4.7.2.T.R2: Bullshit. My brother stared at the Sun for over a minute and he's fine.
4.1.5: Electricity is bad.
4.1.5.1: Bad idea. Electricity can make things better for everyone, helps advance medicine and make us live longer, more comfortable lives.
4.1.5.2: Good idea. Humans were not evolved to live with electrical devices. It's unnatural. (As with every opinion, even this one is available online in the Pangean Internet... it doesn't matter that it's contradictory, if someone wants to read this opinion online, they must be able to)
4.1.5.2.R1: Yeah, that's why I'll remove all electricity from my house next month. I'm tired of living unnaturally!
5: You should only use websites without the ID age verification.
5.1: Fight back against the invasion of privacy!
5.2: It's not necessarily the invasion of privacy that's bad but we shouldn't be limited to watching only Dopamine Cartoons just because we didn't give our ID.
6: You should only use websites with ID age verification.
6.1: Obedience is a virtue.
6.2: Obedience is not necessarily a virtue but in this case it's good to be involved in a practice that will allow teenagers to have age-appropriate experiences. Gaian countries are doing the right thing this time.
7: If in Gaia you don't use the Internet the police will force you to be bitten by venomous snakes.
7.T: Official Truth: that statement is false, there is no such practice in Gaia. However, in some Gaian countries as of the 2020's, not having access to the Internet may lead to artificial systemic disadvantages to the individual who has no access to the Internet, none of which however involve being bitted by snakes.
More opinions coming soon!

12.20: The Iceberg of Ideas

The collection of all ideas (or worldviews, which are sets of multiple ideas, which the Pangean government sees in a modular manner for pragmatic reasons but each citizen and/or media can see it in their own way, of course) can be conceptualized in some worldviews as an iceberg: at the top there are "mainstream" ideas, then the further you go down, the less mainstream those ideas are. If you go deep enough, you get ideas that appear in no media, those are views, ideas and beliefs you cannot arrive to by yourself, and may as well be unthinkable (though this is debated even by official researchers). In Pangea, pretty much any idea you can arrive at by yourself has dedicated media promoting that idea, being against that idea, explaining that idea neutrally, debates of opposite opinions regarding that idea and so on. Those are ideas generally not found in Gaia (e.g. the idea of a diet where you only eat animals who, once born, have 50% or higher probability of being killed and eaten by another animal), but are almost always found in Pangea. Note that in Pangea, even if technically literally nobody believes in an idea, there is still media promoting it, promoting its opposite, showing debates between believers of that idea and opponents and so on, because of how the Pangean society is structured. Those ideas tend to be very abstract, occult/esoteric, the kind of ideas that non-modular psychiatrists would call "schizophrenic" and that a non-modular Muslim or a Christian would think have come from Satan itself. Where ideas are located within the iceberg depends on the culture: for example, in the Aztec Empire, torturing and sacrificing children to Tlaloc in order to get rain was mainstream, and therefore at the top of the iceberg, whereas in modern "western" (i.e. Anglo-European i.e. Europe + English-speaking countries)) culture, that idea would be much deeper in the iceberg. Deep enough into the iceberg, you get ideas that no culture, and not even very small ideologies or cults have ever thought about, not even Pangea. Considering that Pangea actively promotes publishing media about as many different ideas as possible, then if Pangea has not been able to think about it, there's some possibility that idea cannot be physically thought by the human mind. Some Pangean psychologists have made a hypothesis that you can't go too deep, that there's some sort of cognitive barrier that prevents a human from accessing the deepest parts of the iceberg. Some (though not all) Pangean psychologists call that part "The Marianna". If that hypothesis is correct, then there's a limit to what a human can think. Pangean psychologists are still making research about this topic, and they're paying volunteers (completely optional, as that would be too burdensome to be an actual job) to use psychedelic drugs and explain their experiences. Some (though not all, as always) Pangean psychologists suggest the possibility that even though an idea can technically be thought, at some point of complexity/absurdness it can no longer communicated through language. Whether that part is "The Marianna" depends on the classification, some Pangean psychologists say it is, some say it is not.

Possible paradigms

Paradigm 1: the visible part of the iceberg are the mainstream ideas, whereas everything else is buried underwater. The depth indicates how unpopular and/or unknown an idea is. In Pangea, since everyone can be immersed in whatever ideas they want, the "popularity" of an idea is almost totally irrelevant for someone's daily experiences, especially compared to other countries that don't offer the possibility to customize one's own experiences during free time.
Paradigm 2: same as paradigm 1 except that subcultural ideas are also on the visible part of the iceberg, as long as 'the average person' is aware that there are people who believe in those ideas. More obscure ideas are buried underwater, and the depth indicates how unknown (rather than how unpopular) an idea is.

12.21: hoarding vs discarding items

Coming soon!

For now...

What is better to do?

1: Hoarding items
1.1: Have a specific room or closet where you keep the "emotional value" items, and where you can go whenever you specifically want to be immersed in your memories and emotions, instead of living in an environment that is a mix of emotional and functional, as that can help you categorize things better and separate emotion from the utility, as well as letting you live without clutter.
1.2: Live in an environment that is a mix of emotional and functional, as that may have emotional benefits.
2: Discarding items
2.1: Maximalist interpretation: The past causes you to be stuck, so it's good to always start anew and live new experiences. Life is very short, so don't hold to the same memories over and over again, keep making new ones!
2.2: Minimalist interpretation: it's good to live in a minimalist environment without clutter, for various reasons.
3: Neither choice is always good, there are criteria as for whether hoarding or discarding an item.
3.1: Pragmatic approach: discard what is not useful and keep what is useful.
3.1.1: "Emotional value" is useless, a distraction that keeps your mind stuck in the past.
3.1.2: "Emotional value" is important. If something is important for you to keep due to the memories or emotions it brings (e.g. a photo, whether physical or digital), keep it even if it has no functional value.

12.23: The Archons (Metanomism)

Note: while this specific conceptualization (called "Metanomism" by some media, and I'll call it "Metanomism" just to give it a name and be able to refer to it) of the Archons is vaguely inspired by Gnosticism, it is also significantly different. What they have in common is the etymology, from the Ancient Greek which means "the rulers". Of course, in Pangea there are also versions of Gnosticism identical to those of Gaia.

In this section, "the Archons" are defined as the entities that are behind (any) collections of certain sets of rules, and punishments for not following those rules (including the "secular" laws of modern "western" (i.e. English speaking and/or European) countries). Collections of sets of rules without punishments, those are not called "Archons", because you can't rule without punishments. Rules without punishments are more like "guidelines" for oneself, one's one moral values, and have nothing to do with being ruled. Whether or not humans can be considered "Archons" depends on the particular interpretation. Any entity which prescribes collections of rules and punishments for breaking those rules is an Archon. It follows that, according to this view (or at least, most of its interpretations), all countries are theocracies, and it's impossible for a country to not be a theocracy. Yahweh and Allah for example are (within the view formulated in this page) both Archons, and so is Tlaloc, who requires child sacrifice, with the threat of severe droughts if that rule is disobeyed. Any deity or non-physical entity that does not prescribe any set or rules and punishments is called (in Metanomism, at least) an "Anarchon" ("not a ruler"). For example, if a deity is conceptualized simply as "the cause of lightning" with no further information, then that deity is an Anarchon. Note that any set or rules and punishments, even absurd ones like "if you eat tomatoes you shall be tortured and put to death", has an Archon behind it.

Pascal's Wager

17th century Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal formulated the following idea: you should "believe in" (i.e. obey, which is what was really meant, and so I will use this word instead since it's more accurate) "God" (i.e. Yahweh), for the following reason: if Yahweh exists [and, some may add, if Yahweh tells the truth about himself, which is a condition Pascal originally took for granted], then if you obey him, he will not torture you after you die, whereas if you disobey him, he will torture you forever after you die. Whereas if Yahweh does not exist [or, some may add, if he exists but he either lies about his characteristics or if he falsely believes something about himself], then even if you follow his rules, you have not lost anything. So, if you follow Yahweh's rules then: if he exists, you'll be spared eternal torture, whereas if he doesn't exist, you won't lose anything. If you disobey his rules however: if he exists, he'll torture you forever after you die, whereas if he doesn't exist, he won't torture you. So, within this framing, it is advantageous to follow his rules to avoid being tortured forever by him in the afterlife.

Of course, the framing of the Pascal's Wager is extremely specific and contains a huge amount of unwarranted assumptions (for example, that the Archon that one is taking into consideration (i.e. Yahweh) has told the truth). The exact same reasoning can be made about any Archon whose punishment is "eternal torture in the afterlife". For example, an argument can be made against eating tomatoes, because if the tomatophobic Archon exists, then by eating tomatoes, it'll torture you forever in the afterlife, whereas if you don't eat tomatoes, you won't get tortured regardless of the existence of the tomatophobic Archon. Furthermore, one can create a version of the wager where the truthfulness of the Archon in question is not taken for granted, and two separate columns are created for "the Archon told the truth" or "the Archon lied/was ignorant about itself" (which can be either conceptualized as one column in the table or two columns.. so how "advantageous" it is to decide to follow an Archon from the structure of Pascal's Wager is entirely a matter of how the table is framed). The first table is how Blaise Pascal formulated the wager ("Yahweh" is substituted with "Archon" to make the reasoning more generic and highlight the structure of the wager rather than its specific content). In this table, it will be assumed, as Pascal did, that the Archon in question tells the truth (a Truthful Archon is also called a Type T Archon):

Table 1: Truthful Afterlife-Torturer Archon (Type T, the type of Archon Pascal assumed in the wager)

Of course, the table above works for any Archon whose punishment is "eternal torture after death", so it could be argued from it that you should avoid eating tomatoes, or that you should follow literally any arbitrary set of rules decided by whoever argues in favor of the wager. Now here's a table that assumes that the Archon that tortures you forever after you die is a liar. Now, if it's a liar, three combinations are possible, for example: neither obeying nor disobeying will lead to eternal torture (I'll call it Type N), both obeying and disobeying will lead to eternal torture (Type Y), or that obeying will lead to eternal torture and disobeying will lead the disobeyer to be spared from eternal torture (Type R). A lying Archon is called a Trickster Archon.

Table 2: Trickster Afterlife-Torturer Archon (Type R, the type of Archon that does the opposite it claims)

Table 3: Trickster Afterlife-Torturer Archon (Type N, the type of Archon that will not torture you even though it claims to torture disobeyers forever)

Table 4: Trickster Afterlife-Torturer Archon (Type Y, the type of Archon that will torture you regardless if you obey or not, even though it claims to spare those who obey)

Assuming that there is an equal chance for an Afterlife-Torturer Archon to be one of those types (25% chance each), obeying or disobeying has equal chance of you ending up being tortured forever by the Archon. Pascal's Wager assumes that the Archon who will torture you after you die is a Type T (Truthful) Archon. A more comprehensive analysis may take into consideration that the Archon may be any of the four types, not just type T. So, depending on which possibilities you take into consideration, your conclusions of whether or not it's more advantageous of obeying an Archon may vary. Not to mention, if the existence of multiple Afterlife-Torturer Archons, each one with different rules, is taken into consideration, then it becomes unclear which Archon one has to obey in order to not be tortured forever, even if one assumes they're all Type T - i.e. truthful - Archons. This latter approach is a common objection against the Pascal's Wager.

An "inclusive" approach is to take all possibilities into consideration, so that you do not know what type of Archon that is in respect to its lying/honesty patterns. A "non-inclusive" approach is to take only some possibilities into consideration (like the original formulation of the Pascal's Wager does).

There may actually be at least one good argument in favor of the Pascal's Wager, one that has some parallels to the Prisoner's dilemma or Roko's basilisk. Assuming that the psychic energies of humans is what power Archons and deities in general, one can deduce then that the deity with the highest amount of psychic energies is the most powerful one, and therefore, competing claims between the Archons are won by the Archon who has accumulated the highest amount of psychic energies. If all human beings give an equal amount of psychic energies, then the most powerful Archon is Yahweh, the only deity that Christians are supposed to worship. One can however argue that it's not necessarily the amount of people we need to consider, but the amount of psychic energies. One can argue that Muslims give more psychic energies to their deity compared to Christians, because Muslims pray five times a day, and that means Allah receives a higher amount of psychic energies overall, making Allah the most powerful deity, and so it's Allah who has the power to torture or spare people in the afterlife. Yet another hypothesis is that there may be a secret group somewhere on Earth whose members give an exceptionally high amount of psychic energies to their deity (due to the members' incredible, almost super-human psychic abilities), making that deity the most powerful. It is speculation however to guess what kind of characteristics this secret most powerful deity may have. It's possible for example that it may not be an Archon, and that instead of torturing people, it creates a beautiful and happy afterlife for everyone. Or maybe not.

However, some media in Pangea points out that even the argument above is not a good argument in favor of the Pascal's Wager, as it does not remove the problem that we do not know what kind of Archon Yahweh/Allah is in respect to his lying/honesty patterns, and as such, he can be any of the four types even in that argument. Some Pangean media try their best to defend Pascal's Wager, and bring up a variety of arguments to defend it, as Pangean media does with literally every idea.

When the Archons actually "rule" (or don't rule) over humans

Some media in Pangea claim that, if everyone on Earth is a Muslim, then Allah has enough psychic energies to kill every human and spell the end of the human race. But now, since only a minority is a Muslim, Allah doesn't have enough psychic energies to kill the entire human species (or anyone, for that matter), so humans have to kill people on his behalf, because he currently can't kill anyone, with the amount of psychic energies he has. Some media says that there is a hierarchy among the Archons, here is one of the possible conceptualizations:

-Supreme Archon: creates a set of rules and enforces it directly, without human intervention (like Physis (which I'll explain eventually)).
-High Archons: they create a set of rules, but can only enforce it directly if they have enough psychic energies from humans. For example, an Archon that bans tomatoes with the death penalty, if it receives enough psychic energies from humans, can kill a tomato-eater directly.
-Middle Archons: they create a set of rules but cannot enforce them directly. If they have enough psychic energies, they can convince humans to enforce those rules on their behalf. Allah is an example of a Middle Archon, and Yahweh is one too.
-Low Archons: they create a set of rules but can never enforce them, neither directly nor indirectly. Even if most people in a society agree with a certain set of rules (proposed by a Low Archon), that set of rule is not implemented.

Some media says that these categories are fixed and that each Archon always stays at the same category, but some media on the other hand says that the categories are not fixed and that, with a higher amount of psychic energies, an Archon can climb the ladder. Some media says that, for example, if everyone in the world is a Muslim, then Allah is no longer a Middle Archon but becomes a High Archon, and, if he wants, he could exterminate the entire human species by himself. He does not seem to be currently capable of that, though, because in Islamic countries, gay people are not killed/imprisoned by Allah, but by humans. That, according to this framework, means Allah is a Middle Archon, just like Yahweh.

But another categorization (called "Monoarchonism") that some media uses is that only the Supreme Archon (what some call "Physis") exists, and that anytime what is called a High Archon in the previous categorization enforces a rule by itself, that's actually the Supreme Archon enforcing that rule. In this categorization, High Archons, Middle Archons and Low Archons do not exist, and the rules of the Middle Archons are created and enforced by humans, making an actual theocracy impossible. One can only (falsely) believe that a country is a theocracy, but it's all human-made rules. As for who the Supreme Archon is, some call it Physis, whereas some other people call it in different ways. There are also modular religions that are a mix of Christianity/Islam and Monoarchonism, and those people call the supreme archon "Yahweh" or "Allah", and do not believe that Yahweh/Allah "forbid" homosexuality, bacon, alcohol and the like, since it's clearly physically possible to perform those actions, without any punishment either. In Pangea, there are temples for everything, including Monoarchonism and all other beliefs in this entire page and beyond, and Monoarchonist temples don't claim that Physis requires goig to the temple, they claim it's a voluntary human choice. Physis forbids travelling faster than light (as per our current understanding), or to travel one kilometer/mile with just one jump on Earth. Having Dragonball-like superpowers is also forbidden by Physis. These are "absolute rules", that cannot be violated, but there are also "softer" rules, that can be violated but there is punishment. Drinking Cyanide is punished with death. Physis forbids drinking cyanide and Yahweh and Allah forbid homosexuality. If you drink cyanide, Physis itself will put you to death, whereas if you are gay in Saudi Arabia, it's not Allah who kills you, but humans (the government). In the previous categorization, that's because Physis is the Supreme Archon and Allah is a Middle Archon, who has created a set of rules and, since he has enough psychic energies in Saudi Arabia, his set of rules is implemented, albeit by humans. In this categorization where the Supreme Archon is the only Archon (mono-archonism???), then the explaination is that the Supreme Archon puts you to death as a punishment for drinking cyanide, but that there is no Archon forbidding homosexuality, and that what happens in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries is just a set of rules created and enforced by humans, with no divine intermediary or influence. In the next part, I'll list what a Pangean Christian or a Pangean Muslim may say about this and how they may explain this phenomenon, and why Yahweh/Allah do not enforce their own rules themselves.

Why don't Yahweh or Allah enforce their rules themselves?

Note: because religion is modular in Pangea, the Christians and Muslims there may not necessarily be "fully Christian" or "fully Muslim" (though some Pangeans are fully Christians or fully Muslims, of course) and may insert non-Abrahamic ideas into their worldview. In Pangea, adhering to a religion is not binary, it's gradual, so in this section, "Christian" and "Muslim" mean "at least mostly Christian" and "at least mostly Muslim", respectively. In Pangea, there are also "Abrahamists", who blend elements of Christianity, Islam and Judaism in various ways. There are also Christo-Muslims, who blend elements of Christianity and Islam, though not Judaism, as well as people who blend Christianity and/or Islam with unrelated ideas from non-Abrahamic worldviews. That means, these arguments may potentially be discarded by Gaian Christians and Muslims, but there is necessarily some Pangean media promoting these ideas. Note that, unless otherwise noted, "Yahweh" is a contraction of "Yahweh and/or Allah", and "The Bible" is a contraction of "The Bible and/or the Quran", and so on, for brevity.

1: Because Yahweh does not actually promote those rules, people who wrote The Bible were human and used those rules for human advantage. Yahweh only forbids stuff like travelling faster than light, breathing underwater and the like. He (or "she/it", in Pangea, Yahweh is not necessarily male, especially when conceptualized as the highest deity rather than just a storm deity from the middle east) is the creator of the Universe, if he really thought anything negative about homosexuality or bacon, he would had forbidden those things.
2: Because Yahweh does not yet have enough psychic energies. He's not actually omnipotent, that's just a benevolent lie used to control people, but he can and will become omnipotent if everyone becomes Christian, that's why he wants us to spread Christianity. He will do good things for humankind once he becomes omnipotent, so we should all become Christians, the world will become wonderful.
3: Yahweh can definitely enforce those rules himself, he doesn't want to, because he wants to test humans. He's omnipotent but not omniscient, the omniscience part is just a benevolent lie to control people, so he does need to test people, and then he tortures whoever disobeys, after the disobedient person dies.
3.R1: If Yahweh tortures disobedient people in the afterlife, then what's the purpose of telling humans to enforce his rules during this life?.
3.R1.x: possible answers coming soon.

12.24: Attitudes towards sex:

Types:

1: Liberal
2: Moderate
3: Strict

Idea (to build upon eventually): isomorphic vs sandboxed. An isomorphic attitude applies to all places, whereas a sandboxed attitude varies depending on the place and/or social situation (e.g. sex is ok but only in private). A sandboxed attitude is what is commonplace, as an isomorphic attitude towards sex is likely to be extremely rare, but it's still hilarious to make such distinction so I'll make it!

What do "liberal", "moderate" and "strict" mean exactly? Tentative definitions:

Liberal:
L1: "Acceptance" (will be defined more precisely one day) of (consensual) sexual relationships ("global liberalism"), or acceptance of a specific sexual relationship ("local liberalism"). The distinction between global vs local liberalism is inspired by the distinction between global and local atheism.
Strict:
S1: Non-acceptance of (most) sexual relationships (consensual or not), or non-acceptance of a specific (consensual) sexual relationship. Globally strict vs locally strict also applies here.
Moderate:
M1: an in-between value of the quantity/variety of accepted consensual sexual relationships. Distinction between local vs global does not apply here.
M2: an in-between value of the degree of acceptance (in terms of "warmth" of attitude/emotion) one has on average towards consensual sexual relationships. Distintion between local vs global does apply here.

Liberal/moderate/strict for whom?

1: Distinction between ages
2: Distinction between genders
3: Distinction between social classes
4: Distinction between sexual orientations
5: Distinction based on the power dynamics present in the relationship

Enforcement type:

1: Individual
2: Societal
3: Legal/statal/penal/coercive/punitive
4: No enforcement. Attitudes are sincere and spontaneous.

Homosexuality (same-sex relationship):

1: Punished with death
2: Punished with jail
3: Punished with corporal punishment
4: Punished with economic sanctions
5: Punished with social ostracism
6: Punished with exile
7: Allowed but ridiculed
8: Allowed but discouraged
9: Allowed only between certain social classes
-9.1: Allowed only between the highest classes (e.g. royal classes, government, authorities, wealthy people)
-9.2: Allowed only between the lowest classes (e.g. slaves, poor people, social outcasts, prisoners, exiled people)
-9.3: Allowed in all social classes, but only between the same social class (however "same" social class is defined)
10: Allowed only in certain circumstances
-10.1: Allowed only between homosexuals (bisexuality is forbidden, one must "choose" between homosexuality and heterosexuality and stick to it for the rest of their lives)
-10.2: Allowed only during specific times (e.g. winter, full moon, specific days or specific years)
11: Allowed only between consensual 'adults' (definitions of 'adult'):
-11.1 Age-dependant definitions:
-11.1.1 11+
-11.1.2 13+
-11.1.3 16+
-11.1.4 18+
-11.1.5 20+
-11.2 Post-puberty
-11.3 After successfully passing the middle school exams
-11.4 After successfully passing the high school exams
-11.5 After successfully passing the sexual understanding exams
-11.6 After successfully passing an adulthood-initiatory rite (such as hunting and killing an animal for the first time, or other rites)
12: Mandatory i.e. it is mandatory to have at least one homosexual relationship in one's life, regardless of other relationships
13: Mandatory i.e. it is mandatory for those who have had at least one relationship in their lives, to have at least one homosexual relationship
14: Mandatory for the first sexual relationship i.e. it is mandatory that the first sexual relationship of one's life is homosexual, the next ones can be freely chosen.

Heterosexuality (opposite gender relationships):

---Full-time permits (regardless of seasons, days, years, full-moons, festivities, zodiac ages etc.):

1: Allowed only to reproduce. Only between married couples.
2: Allowed only to reproduce, but between anyone (even strangers) is fine, as long as it's for reproductive purposes.
3: Allowed only between married couples. Even for non-reproductive purposes. Unmarried sex even is banned even for reproduction.
4: Allowed only between married couples, OR between anyone (even strangers), but in the second case, only for reproduction.
5: Allowed full-time for married couples, allowed only certain times (e.g. in certain moon phases, seasons, days, years etc.) for unmarried couples.
6: Allowed both for married and unmarried couples full-time, but polyamory is prohibited (or socially discouraged) in both cases.
7: Mandatory at least once for married couples (at least once in the 30 days after marriage, sex is mandatory, failing to have sex at least once in the 30 days after marriage is punishable for both), optional for unmarried couples.
-7.1: Polyamory is prohibited for both married and unmarried couples.
-7.2: Polyamory is prohibited for married couples but allowed for unmarried couples.
-7.3: Polyamory is allowed for both married and unmarried couples.
-7.4: Polyamory is allowed for married couples but prohibited for unmarried couples.
8: Allowed (optional) for both married and unmarried couples.

---Time-variable permits: permits may change according to:

1: Seasons
2: Specific holy/unholy days
3: Specific holy/unholy years
4: Moon phases
5: Festivity periods
6: Zodiac ages
7: Natural disasters
8: War results (victory/defeat/etc.)
9: Weather
---etc.

Pornography:

1: Allowed for 'adults' (for definitions of 'adult', see homosexuality section 11) to see it for their own decision
2: Allowed for everyone to see it for their own decision
3: Allowed for every 'adult' to suggest another 'adult' to see porn
4: Allowed for anyone to suggest anyone else to see porn
5: Allowed to see it for one's own decision, but prohibited to suggest someone else see it
6: Allowed to see it for one's own decision AND allowed to suggest someone else see it, but prohibited to insist or force anyone else to see it
7: Mandatory to see porn at least once in their lives (e.g. in the 30 days following one's 'adulthood', however 'adulthood' is defined)
8: Mandatory to see porn at least once a year
9: Mandatory to see porn at least once a month
10: Students are forced to watch porn in mandatory 'porn watching classes'. They will also make exams with answers to check their understandings of porn.
11: Mandatory to see porn [at least once in their lives OR at least once a year OR at least once a month], but can be exempt from this law through punitive taxation.
12: Mandatory to watch porn during full moon, prohibited all other moments.
13: Mandatory to watch porn during full moon, allowed all other moments.
14: Allowed to watch porn during full moon, prohibited all other moments.
15: Completely prohibited, under any circumstance.
16: Completely prohibited except for some social classes (either high, like priests or kings, or low, like slaves), which may or may not have restrictions on the vision of pornography.

Individual Reactions:

1: Disgust
2: Moral condemnation
3: Indifference
4: Secret approval
5: Moral condemnation, but without ostracizing or unfriending the person doing it (hate the crime/deviation but not the criminal/deviant)
6: Killing the criminal
7: Capturing the criminal and letting the law enforcers kill or otherwise punish him/her.
8: Publicly accusing the criminal/deviant of his/her prohibited (or frowned upon) sexual behavior or opinion.
8: Moral condemnation + ostracizing and unfriend the person doing it, and stop any interaction, but:
8.1: Allowing other people to interact with that person. The people who interact with that criminal/deviant are not morally condemned.
8.2: Not allowing other people to interact with that person. The people who interact with that criminal/deviant are also morally condemned.
9: Open approval.
9.1: Spontaneous approval.
9.2: Approval because everyone else approves it (not necessarily sincere).

Types of individual reactions:

1: Free/spontaneous reactions (not required by the law) at a prohibited sexual behavior or opinion
2: Legally required reactions. Failure to comply may result in some sort of penalty (even death penalty, possibly).
3: Reactions required by at least one law deity. Failure to comply may result either in divine punishment and great misfortune for the individual and/or the society that individual lives in, or both divine punishment AND human law's punishment.
4: Socially required reactions. While not punished by the law, someone who fails to have the majority-approved attitude(s) towards sex, will be met with ridicule, hate, ostracism or even government-allowed violence.
5: Requirements might differ according to gender, social class, or other factors. For example, a slave or people with the lowest classes might be granted more freedom (by society and/or by the government) to have differing attitudes, or vice-versa, the people of highest classes (for example rich people, priests, members of the royal family, the prince, princess etc.) might be allowed that freedom.

Opinions of the gods and goddesses:

1: Atheist society. No opinion because there is no god or goddess at all.
2: Monotheist society. The opinion of the only deity about morality doesn't matter (or is not given at all). Humans decide morality, not God(dess).
3: Monotheist society. The opinion of the only deity about morality does matter and failure to comply results in divine punishment for the individual and/or the society that individual lives in.
4: Duotheist society. There are two gods with the same moral opinions, but their opinions don't matter.
5: Duotheist society. There are two gods with the same moral opinions, and their opinions do matter and failure to comply results in divine punishment etc.
6: Duotheist society. There are two gods with differing moral opinions, but only one of them (it's already specified whom) should be followed, because that is the good and/or powerful deity. The other deity is evil and/or weak, and therefore his/her opinions about morality don't matter and should not be followed.
7: Duotheist society. There are two gods with differing moral opinions, and which deity should be followed depends on certain variables, for example which of the two deities an individual has sworn loyalty to.
8: Polytheist society. There are multiple gods, and the vast majority of them has the same opinions about morality. There are very few gods who disagree, and the opinion of the majority of the gods should be followed. Failure to comply may result in divine punishment.
9: Polytheist society. There are multiple gods, and the vast majority of them has the same opinions about morality. There are very few gods who disagree, and that is the opinion that should be followed because those few gods are "more enlightened" than the relatively more spiritually dormient gods. Failure to comply may result in divine punishment.
10: Polytheist society. There are multiple gods, and there is no clear consensus what the general opinion about morality is. Which god(s) opinion should be followed depends on certain variables, for example which god(s) an individual has sworn loyalty to, or the god(s) can also be chosen by which opinion or attitude about sex resonates better with the mortal who holds it.
11: Pantheist society. A god that is everything, and doesn't have moral opinions about anything, and doesn't care, because caring would be a sign of imperfection.
12: Polytheist society. There are multiple gods, but none of them require mortals to hold a specific attitude towards sex, as they are indifferent or do not interfere with such affairs.

As for the above, there may be a page that will provide as a template (one called "divine commands", which already exists, even if there's not much content there yet).

Criteria for approval or disapproval

1: Deontological reasoning. A certain sexual behavior is approved or disapproved in and of itself.
2: Consequentialist reasoning. A certain sexual behavior is approved or disapproved based on the consequences it brings.
2.1: Scope restricted to the participating individuals: the consequences taken into consideration are those experienced by the individuals who participate in that specific sexual activity.
2.2: Full scope: the consequences taken into consideration are large-scale and utilitarian, e.g. the effect on birth rates, sexually transmitted diseases, what kind of offspring is generated (may or may not involve eugenics).
3: Consent-based reasoning. A certain sexual behavior is approved if all participating individuals consent, disregarding any other factor, except perhaps age.

12.25: Divine Commands

Action/behavior X

Possible values (basic paradigm):

-Prohibition
-Compulsion
-Indifference

(Complex paradigm):

-Absolute prohibition (i.e. it is physically impossible to do such thing)
-Absolute compulsion (i.e. it is physically impossible to not do such thing)
-Prohibiton with immediate punishment (e.g. it is forbidden to touch the fire with bare hands, the divine punishment is extreme pain)
-Compulsion with immediate punishment if the rule is broken (e.g. it is compulsory to NOT touch the fire with bare hands)
-Prohibition with delayed/non-certain punishment (e.g. it is forbidden to drink alcohol, the divine punishment is an increased chance of developing cancer)
-Compulsion with delayed/non-certain punishment
-Indifference
-Prohibition with no divine punishment, yet for some unclear reason humans are supposed to follow this rule (e.g. it is "forbidden" by Yahweh and Allah to be homosexual, yet there is no punishment (from those gods) for such action, as clearly seen in non-Islamic western countries, and all punishments against such action are carried out by humans, rather than by gods) (perhaps the consequences of following such divine rule are naturally beneficial? or perhaps not)
-Compulsion with no divine punishment if the rule is broken, yet for some unclear reason humans are supposed to follow this rule (perhaps the consequences of following such divine rule are naturally beneficial? or perhaps not)

Note: it can be said that even with no divine ("actual") punishment, it's still a divine rule. Like, how Yahweh prohibits homosexuality but does not enforce that rule himself. This can have its own, detailed section, since there are strange implications about this phenomenon.

-Atheist society:

Observation: atheism is the simplest among all theisms. Since there are no gods, and nothing divine exists, there are also no commands nor any divine laws (since, any law, whether subjective or objective, cannot be divine in atheism, since atheism claims the absence of the divine at any point in time, including in the past, and it denies the possibility of the existence of any future divinity), so for any action/behavior X, there is no divine command associated with it.

-Monotheist society:

Observation: monotheism is more complex than atheism, but less complex than duotheism or polytheism.

Commands of God:

1 Monotheist society (amoral God). God is not the giver of morality, so for any action/behavior X, there is no divine command associated with it.
2. Monotheistic society (indifferent God). God is indifferent to morality, so for any action/behavior X, the divine command associated with it is "indifference" (i.e. God is indifferent towards action/behavior X). (Same thing as allowance? Answer still not decided)
3. Monotheistic society. God is the giver of morality, and it prohibits action/behavior X.
3.1: it prohibits such action/behavior by making it physically impossible to perform (e.g. God has prohibited travelling faster than light)
3.2: it prohibits such action/behavior by immediately giving a punishment to the people performing it (e.g. God has prohibited touching fire with one's bare hands, the punishment for breaking such rule is extreme pain)
3.3: it prohibits (more like "discourages") such action/behavior by giving a delayed (though not necessarily certain) punishment to the people performing it (e.g. God discourages (or tries to discourage) people from drinking alcohol by giving increased possibility of cancer as a delayed/non-certain punishment for breaking that rule)
3.4: God claims to prohibit an action/behavior (or, alternatively, humans claim that God has prohibited it), but absolutely no punishment is given for breaking that rule, yet somehow it is expected that humans follow that rule, or that they enforce that rule on other humans by prohibiting them from doing such action. It is probable that a lesser god who is unable to enforce its own rules may tend towards this kind of pattern (e.g. Yahweh and Allah claim to prohibit homosexuality, however, as seen in non-Islamic western countries, there is absolutely no punishment from the gods for breaking that "rule", and in Islamic countries, the punishment is always carried out by humans, not by Allah nor any other god. Furthermore it seems like the quality of life in such countries that allow homosexuality is generally better than that of those which don't allow it)
4. Monotheistic society. God is the giver of morality, and it mandates action/behavior X.
4.x (same pattern as 3.x)
5: There used to be a divine morality (i.e. given by God), but God had destroyed it sometime in the distant past, and therefore there is currently no divine morality.
6: There used to be a divine morality (i.e. given by God), but God had destroyed it sometime in the distant past, and then God killed itself, so there is currently no divine morality and no God.
7: There is currently no divine morality, but God will give it sometime in the future, when humans will be advanced enough to understand it.
8: There is a divine morality but God has given it to very few, extremely religious people, and the divine morality must be kept secret from the other people. Following the divine morality will lead to great benefits that are not given to the vast majority of people on Earth.
9: There is currently no divine morality and no God, but God will start existing at some point in the future, and may or may not give a divine morality.
10: God had existed at some time in the past, but now does not exist anymore, but will exist again sometime in the future, and may or may not give a divine morality.
11: It is known that there is a divine morality, but the content of it is unknown.
12: It is unknown whether or not there is a divine morality.
13: It is known that there is no divine morality.
14: There is one God, and there is a plural finite integer number of moralities (plurimoral God)
14.n2: There is one God, and there are two divine moralities (bimoral God)
14.n3: There is one God, and there are three divine moralities (trimoral God)
14.n4: There is one God, and there are four divine moralities (quadrimoral God)
14.n5: There is one God, and there are five divine moralities (pentamoral God)
14.n6: There is one God, and there are six divine moralities (hexamoral God)
14.netc: etc.
14.1: Humans can freely choose which one of the many moralities to follow, no negative consequences will happen in any case.
14.2: Humans can freely choose which one of the many moralities to follow, some are free from negative consequences, the other ones have negative consequences (but perhaps the ones which have negative consequences are more appealing, so it is a question of whether the negative consequences are worth the price for that "better" morality)
14.3: Humans can freely choose which one of the many moralities to follow, none of them is free from negative consequences, but the nature of those negative consequences is different, so it's a matter of choice and proper evaluation.
14.4: Humans are not free to choose which one to follow.
14.4.1: A group of people must follow one set of rules, and another group must follow the other.
14.4.1.1: Elites must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people of lower social classes must follow the other.
14.4.1.2: People who have participated in some specific ritual (for example, paying a huge amount of taxes), must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people who did not participate in that ritual must follow the other.
14.4.2: The set of rules to follow varies according to the time (e.g. moon phase, season, year etc), not according to the groups of people.
14.5: Some moralities are less stringent than the others (which contain more obligations and more prohibitions)
14.6: No morality is "more" or "less" stringent, just different.
14.6.1: Following the more stringent moralities may be appealing despite the personal sacrifices because of certain benefit that deity will give to the follower.
14.7: The many moralities contradict each other, it is impossible to FULLY follow all of them simultaneously (though one can of course take bits and pieces of multiple moralities and follow a partial mix of them, the real question is whether one is allowed to do so).
14.7.1: Nobody is allowed to mix the many moralities, one must choose one. God gives a plurality of moralities, but mixing them is not permitted.
14.7.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the many moralities as they see fit.
14.7.2.1: Everyone is permitted to mix the many moralities, but not in ANY way. There are specific rules in WHICH patterns of mixing are allowed and which are not.
14.7.2.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the many moralities in any way they wish.
14.7.2: Only the higher classes have the privilege of being allowed to mix the many moralities.
14.7.3: Only the lower classes are allowed to mix the many moralities, with the idea that the lower classes, being inferior, are not expected to follow divine purity, while the higher classes are expected to.
14.7.4: The many moralities can be mixed in some circumstances (e.g. full moon, or depending on the season etc)
14.8: The many moralities do not contradict each other, some may simply be more stringent and some less stringent. In this scenario, it's possible to follow all moralities simultaneously, in that case one would simply be following the most stringent morality.
14.9: The many moralities do not contradict each other, but none of them is "more" nor "less" stringent than the others. It is possible to follow all moralities simultaneously, in that case, the obligations/prohibitions of all moralities are followed, resulting in an extremely authoritarian/restrictive morality that is a blend of the many moralities.
14.10: Among the many moralities of God, only one is the "true" one which must be followed, and it's up to humans to find out which moralities is the true one. How?
14.10.1: The King decides which morality is to be followed.
14.10.1.1: The mere decision of the King means that is the morality that is to be followed, i.e. that morality must be followed (and is the true one) because the King decided so.
14.10.1.2: The decision of the King means that is the morality that is to be followed, i.e. it is assumed that the King has some personal gnosis with God and is able to discern which of the many moralities of God is the true one.

Possible reactions of society:

1: Society obeys
1.1: Society obeys because that's what God commanded
1.1.1: Society obeys because that's what God commanded, and what God commands is always good, by definition
1.1.2: Society obeys because that's what God commanded, and what God commands is not necessarily always good, but it needs to be followed because otherwise there will be punishment
1.2: Society obeys, but not because that's what God commanded, but because they genuinely believe God's idea was good.
2: Society disobeys
2.1: Society disobeys, merely for the sake of disobeying God, not necessarily because they found God's idea to be bad
2.1.1: It is believed that disobeying the one monotheistic God for its own sake is good, because it gives humans independence from God, and freedom to make their own decisions
2.1.1.1: It is believed that there is no actual punishment for disobeying God, and that it was just a lie made by previous rulers, and/or by God itself.
2.1.1.2: It is believed that there is indeed a punishment for disobeying God, but that the punishment is worth the freedom that comes after rebelling against God, like some kind of sacrifice for a higher purpose.
2.2: Society disobeys, not for the sake of disobeying God, but because they genuinely found God's idea to be bad

Epistemology (how they know something is God's command):

1: The King (or Queen, but I'll imply male gender merely to save space) says something is God's command, and that's enough information.
1.1: It is implied that the King himself is in direct knowledge of God's will.
1.2: It is implied that the King himself is not in direct knowledge of God's will, but a very powerful and trusted shaman communicated his knowledge to the King, and then the King spreads that information to his kingdom.
2: The most powerful (singular) shaman in the society is the one who has direct knowledge of God's will, and therefore (s)he is the one who should be listened to.
2.1: The most powerful shaman is the one who conveys the information directly to the public.
2.2: The most powerful shaman conveys the information to the King, who then conveys the information to the public.
3: Democratic vote (Vox Populi, Vox Dei = The voice of the people is the voice of God i.e. implying that whatever "the people" vote for, is what God wills)
3.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
3.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
3.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
3.4: Females cannot vote
3.5: Males cannot vote
3.6: Young people cannot vote
3.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
3.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
3.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
3.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
3.11: Only shamans can vote
3.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
3.13: Only young people can vote
3.14: The voice of the people is the voice of God, because God's will is the same as the people's will (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
3.14.1: God's will is the same as people's will in a qualitative sense, i.e. they are two separate wills, but identical in content.
3.14.2: God's will is the same as people's will in an ontological sense, i.e. they are the same will, not just in content but also in identity.
3.15: The voice of the people is the voice of God, because "God" (and not merely its will) are actually the people, they are in fact ontologically equivalent (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
4: The King IS God
4.1: The King is entirely equivalent to God
4.2: The King is God only during his (entire) life. The Prince is also God. It can be said that the King, and whoever will become King, is God.
4.3: The King is God only during his ruling period (i.e. the King is God when and only when he is a King). The Prince will become God as soon as he becomes a King.
4.4: The King is not entirely equivalent to God, but he has a God-like essence, or is a direct manifestation of God (though not the "true form" of God, which remains transcendental/abstract).
5: The Shaman IS God
5.x: (more or less follows the same pattern as 4.x)
6: Horrible things start happening to whoever disobeyed God
6.1: There is a spectum between what may be considered "reasonable causal attribution" and "superstition" (i.e. unreasonable causal attribution). For example, if God prohibits touching fire with one's bare hands, and the punishment is immediate extreme pain, one may consider that "reasonable causal attribution", while thinking that if one doesn't practice human sacrifice then God will bring plagues may be considered a "superstition". However, it may often be the case that a belief is neither purely "reasonable causal attribution" nor purely "superstition", but somewhere in-between. Arguably, contemporary mainstream media coverage of "climate change" may fall in-between the two, for example.
7: Horrible things start happening (to the entire community) whenever God is disobeyed:
7.1: When God is disobeyed by even just one person
7.2: When God is disobeyed by a considerable amount of people, though not necessarily the majority
7.3: When God is disobeyed by the majority of that community
== (6 and 7 can be mixed with each other, for example it is possible that as long as God is disobeyed by the minority, only those who disobeyed suffer the punishment, but if the majority disobeys God, then the entire community will suffer the punishment, even those who did not disobey) ==

Epistemology (how they know whether a shaman is actually in contact with God, and/or whether that shaman is lying or telling the truth)

1: Whatever the King decides, it shall be believed and accepted.
1.1: The King decides according to his own interests, rather than a genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth'.
1.2: The King decides out of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', rather than his own interests.
1.3: The King's decision is based on a mix of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', and his own interests as well.
1.4: What the Shaman is saying is the truth
1.5: The Shaman is saying whatever benefits him/her the most, regardless of 'the truth'
1.6: What the Shaman is saying is a mix of genuine concern over 'the truth' and his/her own interests as well.
2: Democratic vote
2.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
2.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
2.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
2.4: Females cannot vote
2.5: Males cannot vote
2.6: Young people cannot vote
2.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
2.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
2.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
2.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
2.11: Only shamans can vote
2.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
2.13: Only young people can vote
3: The Shaman IS God
4: The various competing shamans try to prove to the population that they are truly in contact with God. How?
4.1: The various shamans fight to their deaths, using swords or whatever. The last shaman alive is the one who is truly in contact with God.

-Duotheist society:

Types of Duotheism:

1: Good/evil Duotheism
2: Male/female Duotheism
3: Strong/weak Duotheism
4: Creation/destruction Duotheism
5: Polarity Duotheism
6: Other types of Duotheism

Morality:

1: None of the two gods are givers of morality.
2: One of the two gods is a giver of morality, while the other one is not.
3: Both gods are givers of morality: the same morality.
4: Both gods are givers of morality: two different moralities.
4.1: Humans can freely choose which one of the two moralities to follow, no negative consequences will happen in either case.
4.2: Humans can freely choose which one of the two moralities to follow, one is free from negative consequences, the other one has negative consequences (but perhaps the one which has negative consequences is more appealing, so it is a question of whether the negative consequences are worth the price for that "better" morality)
4.3: Humans can freely choose which one of the two moralities to follow, neither is free from negative consequences, but the nature of those negative consequences is different, so it's a matter of choice and proper evaluation.
4.4: Humans are not free to choose which one to follow.
4.4.1: A group of people must follow one set of rules, and another group must follow the other.
4.4.1.1: Elites must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people of lower social classes must follow the other.
4.4.1.2: People who have participated in some specific ritual (for example, paying a huge amount of taxes), must follow one set of rules (perhaps less stringent), and the people who did not participate in that ritual must follow the other.
4.4.2: The set of rules to follow varies according to the time (e.g. moon phase, season, year etc), not according to the groups of people.
4.5: One morality is less stringent than the other (which contains more obligations and more prohibitions)
4.6: Neither morality is "more" or "less" stringent, just different.
4.6.1: Following the more stringent morality may be appealing despite the personal sacrifices because of certain benefit that deity will give to the follower.
4.7: The two moralities contradict each other, it is impossible to FULLY follow both (though one can of course take bits and pieces of both and follow a partial mix of both, the real question is whether one is allowed to do so).
4.7.1: Nobody is allowed to mix the two moralities, it is either one or the other. Both gods are jealous and do not permit such mixing.
4.7.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the two moralities as they see fit.
4.7.2.1: Everyone is permitted to mix the two moralities, but not in ANY way. There are specific rules in WHICH patterns of mixing are allowed and which are not.
4.7.2.2: Everyone is permitted to mix the two moralities in any way they wish.
4.7.2: Only the higher classes have the privilege of being allowed to mix the two moralities.
4.7.3: Only the lower classes are allowed to mix the two moralities, with the idea that the lower classes, being inferior, are not expected to follow divine purity, while the higher classes are expected to.
4.7.4: The two moralities can be mixed in some circumstances (e.g. full moon, or depending on the season etc)
4.8: The two moralities do not contradict each other, one may simply be more stringent and one less stringent. In this scenario, it's possible to follow both moralities simultaneously, in that case one would simply be following the more stringent morality.
4.9: The two moralities do not contradict each other, but neither is "more" nor "less" stringent than the others. It is possible to follow both moralities, in that case, the obligations/prohibitions of both are followed, resulting in a more authoritarian/restrictive morality that is a blend of the two moralities.
5: One god is amoral, and the other god is a bimoral god (giver of two moralities)
5.x: (largely similar to 4.x)
6: The total amount of moralities is three or more, despite there only being two gods.
6.x: (somewhat similar to 4.x and 5.x)

Reactions of society:

1: Both gods are amoral. Societal morality arises for cultural reasons.
2: One god is the giver of (one) morality and the other god is amoral.
2.1: The population obeys to that moral-giver god.
2.1.1: The population obeys to that god not merely for the sake of following that god's morality, but because they genuinely agree with the morality of that god.
2.1.2: The population obeys to that god not because they genuinely agree with the morality of that god, but merely for the sake of following that god's morality.
2.1.2.1: They follow that god merely for the sake of following that god, because they genuinely believe that god is the giver of the best possible moral system for humans, and they believe that god knows more than them, so, even if that god's morality may appear undesirable to society, it's actually good to follow it.
2.1.2.2: They follow that god merely for the sake of following that god, because they are afraid of divine punishment in the case they fail to adhere to that god's moral standards.
2.2: The population disobeys to that moral-giver god.
2.2.1: The population disobeys to that moral-giver god not merely for the sake of rebellion, but because they genuinely disagree with the morality of that god.
2.2.2: The population disobeys to that god not because they genuinely disagree with the morality of that god, but merely for the sake of rebellion.
2.2.2.1: The population believes that to rebel against a god's morality is good regardless of the content of that morality. Rebelling against a god is a symbolic act of freedom.
2.2.2.2: The population believes that to rebel against a god's morality is good unless the content of that morality is good. Of course, if the content of a god's morality is good, the population believes that they'd follow it despite (not because) its divine origins. They'd follow it without mentioning its divine origins, because rebellion against the gods is very important for such culture.
3: Both gods are moral-givers. There are two different moralities in total.
3.1: Through some kind of method, the King (and/or society) estabilishes which god to follow, and that decision is valid for the entire society.
3.1.1: The decision to follow that god's morality is based on the fact that morality is the best out of the two moralities.
3.1.2: The decision to follow that god's morality is based on the fact that god is for some reason considered "better" in some way than the other god, regardless of how good that god's morality is. Or, in the case of good/evil duotheism, they follow the morality of the good god and discard the morality of the evil god.
3.2: Both moralities are rejected.
3.2.1: Both moralities are rejected not merely for the sake of rebellion against the gods, but because they genuinely disagree with the two divine moralities. Society creates their own morality to follow, one that is different from either of the two divine moralities.
3.2.2: Both moralities are rejected not because the population genuinely disagrees with the two divine laws, but merely for the sake of rebellion against the gods. 3.3: Both moralities are accepted, but for different people and/or at different times.
3.3.1: There are two groups of people, and the two groups of people each follow a different morality.
3.3.1.1: One morality for men, the other for women.
3.3.1.2: One morality for the higher classes, the other for the lower classes.
3.3.1.3: One morality for the King, the other for the population.
3.3.1.4: One morality (perhaps more pleasant, less stringent than the other) is given by the King as a reward for people who have done something really beneficial for the King and/or for society, and those people are said to be blessed and/or chosen by the god that is the giver of that morality (granted to those people by that god through the King).
3.3.2: One morality is for certain time periods, the other morality is for other time periods.
3.3.2.1: One morality is for the years holy to one god, the other morality is for the years holy to the other god.
3.3.2.2: One morality is for the times of peace, stability and prosperity, the other morality is for the times of war, pandemics, unrest, poverty and/or disasters in general.

Epistemology (how they know something is a divine command):

In the case of no divine morality:

1: Nothing. There is no divine morality, and as non-existent, it cannot be known.
2: It is known that there is no divine morality.
3: It is not known whether there is a divine morality (but in truth, there is none).

In the case of existing divine morality (unless otherwise noted):

1: The King (or Queen, but I'll say King to save space) declares that something is divinely commanded/allowed/prohibited/etc
1.1: It is implied that the King himself is in direct knowledge of divine morality.
1.2: It is implied that the King himself is not in direct knowledge of the divine will, but a very powerful and trusted shaman communicated his knowledge to the King, and then the King spreads that information to his kingdom.
1.3: It is implied that, due to some sort of divine contract between the King and a god (or both gods) (perhaps it could also be that the King is in part divine or is some sort of emanation of the divine), whatever the King declares to be divinely commanded/allowed/prohibited/etc it is automatically the truth.
2: The most powerful (singular) shaman in the society is the one who has direct knowledge of the divine will, and therefore (s)he is the one who should be listened to. 2.1: The shaman is only in contact with one god
2.1.1: The god the shaman is in contact with prescribes no morality, and it is unknown whether the other god prescribes one.
2.1.1.1: The most powerful shaman is the one who conveys the information directly to the public.
2.1.1.2: The most powerful shaman conveys the information to the King, who then conveys the information to the public.
2.1.2: The god the shaman is in contact does prescribe a morality, but it is unknown whether the other god prescribes an alternative one.
2.2: The shaman is in contact with both gods
2.2.1: Of the two gods, one is known to prescribe a specific morality, and the other is known to NOT prescribe any kind of morality whatsoever.
2.2.2: Of the two gods, one is known to prescribe a specific morality, and it is not known whether the other god prescribes any kind of morality.
2.2.3: Of the two gods, it is known that neither prescribe any morality.
2.2.4: Of the two gods, it is known that both prescribe a (different) form of morality.
Which of the two gods' morality to follow?
2.2.4.1: It is not knowable which of the two moralities one has to follow. Confusion and uncertainty arises.
2.2.4.2: It is knowable which of the two moralities one has to follow. How?
2.2.4.2.1: It is simply known by the shaman, no method specified.
2.2.4.2.2: One can simply choose which morality to follow. Freely?
2.2.4.2.2.1: Yes, freely.
2.2.4.2.2.2: No, there is a 'default' (perhaps more stringent) morality that one must follow, and the morality of the other god can be chosen only if one satisfy certain requisites.
What requisites?
2.2.4.2.2.2.1: Paying the shaman will allow one to be able to choose the morality of the other god (perhaps a less stringent one, so paying the shaman is appealing in that case).
2.2.4.2.2.2.2: One must belong (or be born in) to a particular caste or social class in order to be able to follow the morality of the other god.
2.2.4.2.3: The morality of the god one must follow depends not on the person, but on the time, so it may vary according to the season, year, moon phase etc
2.2.4.2.4: Divination method to gain the knowledge of which morality to follow.
2.2.5: Of the two gods, it is not known whether any of them prescribe any form of morality.
2.2.6: There is a total of more than two moralities, either because one god prescribes two separate sets of moralities, or because the two gods' are not in conflict with each other but share the multiplicity of moralities with each other. How does one know which morality to follow?
2.2.6.x: (same pattern as 2.2.4.x)
3: Democratic vote (Vox Populi, Vox Dei/Deorum) = The voice of the people is the voice of the moral-giver god(s).
3.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
3.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
3.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
3.4: Females cannot vote
3.5: Males cannot vote
3.6: Young people cannot vote
3.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
3.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
3.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
3.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
3.11: Only shamans can vote
3.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
3.13: Only young people can vote
3.14: The voice of the people is the voice of the moral-giver god(s), because that/those god(s) will is the same as the people's will (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
3.14.1: The divine will is the same as people's will in a qualitative sense, i.e. they are two separate wills, but identical in content.
3.14.2: The divine will is the same as people's will in an ontological sense, i.e. they are the same will, not just in content but also in identity.
3.15: The voice of the people is the divine will, because "the divine (the two gods)" (and not merely its will) is actually the people, they are in fact ontologically equivalent (though every person's will is not necessarily equal to each other, as seen in the previous example)
4: The King IS the moral-giver god.
4.1: The King is entirely equivalent to the moral-giver god.
4.2: The King is the moral-giver God only during his (entire) life. The Prince is also the moral-giver God. It can be said that the King, and whoever will become King, is the moral-giver God.
4.3: The King is the moral-giver God only during his ruling period (i.e. the King is that God when and only when he is a King). The Prince will become the moral-giver God as soon as he becomes a King.
4.4: The King is not entirely equivalent to the moral-giver God, but he has a moral God-like essence, or is a direct manifestation of the moral-giver God (though not the "true form" of that God, which remains transcendental/abstract).
5: The Shaman IS the moral-giver God
5.x: (more or less follows the same pattern as 4.x)
6: Horrible things start happening to whoever disobeyed the moral-giver God
6.1: There is a spectum between what may be considered "reasonable causal attribution" and "superstition" (i.e. unreasonable causal attribution). For example, if the moral-giver God prohibits touching fire with one's bare hands, and the punishment is immediate extreme pain, one may consider that "reasonable causal attribution", while thinking that if one doesn't practice human sacrifice then the moral-giver God will bring plagues may be considered a "superstition". However, it may often be the case that a belief is neither purely "reasonable causal attribution" nor purely "superstition", but somewhere in-between. Arguably, contemporary mainstream media coverage of "climate change" may fall in-between the two, for example.
7: Horrible things start happening (to the entire community) whenever the moral-giver God is disobeyed:
7.1: When that God is disobeyed by even just one person
7.2: When that God is disobeyed by a considerable amount of people, though not necessarily the majority
7.3: When that God is disobeyed by the majority of that community
== (6 and 7 can be mixed with each other, for example it is possible that as long as the moral-giver God is disobeyed by the minority, only those who disobeyed suffer the punishment, but if the majority disobeys that God, then the entire community will suffer the punishment, even those who did not disobey) ==

Epistemology (how they know whether a shaman is actually in contact with the moral-giver God, and/or whether that shaman is lying or telling the truth, and/or whether it is known whether there's only one moral-giver god, or whether both gods are moral givers and the shaman is only in contact with one of them etc. lots of possibilities will be explored)

1: Whatever the King decides, it shall be believed and accepted.
1.1: The King decides according to his own interests, rather than a genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth'.
1.2: The King decides out of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', rather than his own interests.
1.3: The King's decision is based on a mix of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', and his own interests as well.
1.4: What the Shaman is saying is the truth
1.5: The Shaman is saying whatever benefits him/her the most, regardless of 'the truth'
1.6: What the Shaman is saying is a mix of genuine concern over 'the truth' and his/her own interests as well.
2: Democratic vote
2.1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
2.2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
2.3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
2.4: Females cannot vote
2.5: Males cannot vote
2.6: Young people cannot vote
2.7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
2.8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
2.9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
2.10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
2.11: Only shamans can vote
2.12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
2.13: Only young people can vote
3: The Shaman IS the moral-giver God.
4: The various competing shamans try to prove to the population that they are truly in contact with the moral-giver God. How?
4.1: The various shamans fight to their deaths, using swords or whatever. The last shaman alive is the one who is truly in contact with the moral-giver God. 4.2: The various shamans participate in an olympic tournament. No death needed.
5: There is more than one moral-giver god (since duotheism is presupposed, both gods are givers of morality).
5.1: Whatever the King says about both gods' moralities, it shall be believed and accepted.
5.1.1: The King decides according to his own interests, rather than a genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth'.
5.1.2: The King decides out of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', rather than his own interests.
5.1.3: The King's decision is based on a mix of genuine concern over whether that is 'the truth', and his own interests as well.
5.1.4: What the Shaman is saying is the truth
5.1.5: The Shaman is saying whatever benefits him/her the most, regardless of 'the truth'
5.1.6: What the Shaman is saying is a mix of genuine concern over 'the truth' and his/her own interests as well.
5.2: Democratic vote.
5.2.A1: Everyone's vote has equal weight
5.2.A2: Male votes have more weight than female votes
5.2.A3: Female votes have more weight than male votes
5.2.A4: Females cannot vote
5.2.A5: Males cannot vote
5.2.A6: Young people cannot vote
5.2.A7: Young people can vote but their vote has less weight
5.2.A8: The vote of those belonging to higher social classes has more weight
5.2.A9: The vote of those belonging to lower social classes has more weight
5.2.A10: Which has more weight depends on certain circumstances, such as moon phase, season, or something else
5.2.A11: Only shamans can vote
5.2.A12: Young people can vote and their vote has more weight
5.2.A13: Only young people can vote
5.2.B1: People in general can vote for both moralities.
5.2.B2: Only the people who worship a particular god can vote for its/his/her morality.
5.2.B2.1: People can only worship one god.
5.2.B2.2: People can worship both gods at the same time.
5.2.B2.3: There are requirements in order to be allowed to worship a god. For example, one god may have a more permissive (therefore more appealing to many) morality, but in order to worship that god, there may be some requirements, like paying an additional tax, doing some favor to the rulers of the land etc.
5.3: The Shaman is one of the gods (the physical one), and the other god is transcendent/metaphysical.
5.4: The Shaman is both gods at the same time.
5.5: The various competing shamans try to prove that they are the physical god (there can be only one physical god as the other is necessarily metaphysical).
5.6: The various competing shamans try to prove that they are a god (there can be two physical gods in this perspective, so two shamans can be gods at most).
5.B1: The competition is fighting with their swords until death.
5.B2: The competition is an olympics event, no death involved.

Polytheist society:

Coming eventually, MAYBE. Duotheism is already very complex, polytheism will surely be a mathematical clusterfuck. I'll work on different text files.

Polytheist society

NOTE: for now this is copied and pasted from the "racism" page. References to racism will be removed eventually in order to make the template more generic (and therefore applicable to any rule or set of rules).

-Polytheist society:

Observation: Polytheism is the most complex among all theisms, the combinations of what a polytheistic society can be are potentially infinite. This 'table' is therefore, very limited, because writing a 'complete' 'table' of all polytheistic combinations is impossible, it would be literally infinite.

Polytheistic society is (A):

A1: Racist
A2: Non-racist

What the gods say (B) (implies there is some clear agreement among the gods):

B1: The gods command for racism
B2: The gods command against racism
B3: The gods don't command anything in particular regarding racism

Relationship between a society's racism and what the gods say (C)

C1: The population obeys the command of the gods out of fear
C2: The population obeys the command of the gods out of respect
C3: The population already wanted to be like that (either racist or non-racist), that what the gods command is the same is just a coincidence
C4: The gods don't command anything in particular regarding racism, so the population chooses, not the gods.
C5: The population disobeys the command of the gods.

When the gods disagree among each other (D) (implies all gods are equal in validity and strength):

D1: Almost all gods agree with one choice (either for or against racism), only a few gods disagree (opposite opinion or neutrality)
D2: Most gods agree with one choice (either for or against racism), the minority of gods disagree (opposite opinion or neutrality)
D3: An equal number of gods agree with one choice (either for or against racism) and an equal number disagree (opposite opinion or neutrality)
D4: Almost all gods are neutral about racism, only a few gods say something about it (either for or against racism)
D5: Most gods are neutral about racism, the minority of gods say something about it (either for or against racism)
D6: An equal number of gods are neutral about racism, and an equal number say something about it (either for or against racism)

Relationship between a society's racism and what the gods say when there is disagreement among the gods (E):

E1: Monocultural society: society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something
E2: Monocultural society: society obeys what the majority of the gods say.
E2.1: If the majority of the gods is neutral about racism, then society does whatever they prefer.
E2.2: If the majority of the gods is neutral about racism, then society considers what the majority of the gods who DO say something about racism say.
E2.3: If there is an equal number of gods commanding for racism and an equal number commanding against racism:
E2.3.1: The society does whatever they prefer.
E2.3.2: They are racist because they believe racism is more holy.
E2.3.3: They are not racist, because they believe lack of racism is more holy.
E2.4: Monocultural society: society obeys whatever the minority of the gods say. Why?
E2.4.1: They believe that being the majority has corrupted those gods who all agree with that notion. They believe it's always the minority, among humans and gods alike, that has wisdom.
E2.4.2: They believe that humans are inferior to the gods, and that therefore they should be humble and follow what a lesser amount of gods decides, because following the path of a high amount of gods equals to arrogance and a sense of superiority, almost as if they want to become like those gods.
E2.5: Multicultural society: each culture decides which (if any) divine guidance to follow.
E2.5.1: The majority of people should follow that most gods say, and the minority of people should follow what the minority of gods say. That is done to ensure harmony between the world of the humans and the world of the gods.
E2.5.2: Another belief about ensuring harmony between the world of the humans and the world of the gods could be the opposite: the majority of the people should follow what the minority of the gods say, and the minority of the people should follow what the majority of the gods say.
E2.5.3: Each culture freely chooses which (if any) divine guidance to follow, not considering whether something is the majority or the minority.
E2.5.3.1: They believe their decision is their own, and not associate their decision to any god.
E2.5.3.2: They believe their decision reflects the decision of some gods, and they might associate their own culture to one or more gods that has the same opinion about racism as that culture does.

When the gods disagree among each other AND there is a difference in validity and/or strength (F):

Paradigm (P) 1: All gods, regardless of their validity/strength, agree that racism is [either good or bad].

P1F1: Monocultural society: society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something or how strong those gods are.
P1F1.1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say etc. they do happen to do the same thing the gods requested, but they do that because they genuinely think it's the better option, not because the gods say so.
P1F2: Monocultural society. Society decides to respect the will of the gods, therefore they do as the gods command.
P1F3: Monocultural society. Society decides to rebel against the gods, and do the opposite as they command.
P1F3.1: Monocultural society. Society decides to rebel against the gods just for the sake of rebelling against the gods. Even if society agreed with the gods, they would still rebel against the gods, because that has higher priority than doing what they think is best.
P1F3.2: Monocultural society. Society decides to rebel against the gods, not for its own sake, but because they genuinely disagree with the gods.
P1F4: Bicultural/multicultural society. Two or more cultures (of varying social classes/prevalence) that can be a combination of any of the above.

Paradigm (P) 2: The most powerful gods have an opinion about racism [either good or bad], and the weakest gods have no opinion about that.

P2F1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something or how strong those gods are.
P2F1.1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say etc. they do happen to do the same thing the most powerful gods requested, but they do that because they genuinely think it's the better option, not because those gods say so.
P2F1.2: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say etc. they do happen to do the same thing the weakest gods requested, but they do that because they genuinely think it's the better option, not because those gods say so.
P2F2: Monocultural society. Society decides to respect the will of the most powerful gods.
P2F3: Monocultural society. Society decides to respect the will of the weakest gods.
P2F3.1: Society decides to respect the will of the weakest gods, because trying to respect the will of the most powerful gods is seen as hubris, arrogance, as trying to be like the most powerful gods. As the weakest gods are seen as closer to humankind compared to the more powerful gods, that's what humankind should follow, in this view. The most powerful gods only hang around among themselves and don't interact with humankind. Because the weakest gods have not expressed an opinion about racism, society does whatever they want.
P2F3.2: Society decides to respect the will of the weakest gods, not because they are the weakest gods, but because, in this paradigm, they are the gods who have expressed no opinion on this issue, therefore granting society more freedom. It is believed, therefore, that the better choice is to follow the gods that give more freedom to humans, regardless of their strength and/or validity. Such an allegiance has the symbolic meaning of choosing freedom over tyranny, and is seen as a praise towards the gods that allow freedom to humans.
P2F4: Monocultural society. Society does the opposite of whatever the most powerful gods command.
P2F4.1: Society does the opposite of whatever the most powerful gods command, not because they think society's own opinion about racism is good, but for the sake of rebelling against the gods.
P2F4.1.1: For the sake of rebelling against the gods in general.
P2F4.1.2: For the sake of rebelling against the most powerful gods. Society feels no need to rebel against the weakest gods.
P2F4.2: Because they think their own opinion about racism is good, so the goal is not to rebel against the gods per se, the goal is to practice (or not practice) racism in the way society prefers.
P2F5: Bicultural/multicultural society. Two or more cultures (of varying social classes/prevalence) that can be a combination of any of the above.

Paradigm (3): The most powerful gods have no opinion about racism, the weakest gods have one [either good or bad].

P3F1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something or how strong those gods are. That the most powerful gods give no opinion about racism is just a coincidence, society wouldn't had cared about the gods' opinions anyway.
P3F2: Monocultural society which decides to respect the will of the most powerful gods, therefore they do whatever they want when it comes to racism.
P3F3: Monocultural society which decides to respect the will of the weakest gods.
(...) (same as paradigm 2 for the most part)

Paradigm (4): Bicultural/multicultural society where two or more cultures have differing beliefs in regard to divine opinions about racism.

P4F1: there is disagreement over what the most powerful gods say about racism, but agreement that the opinion of the most powerful gods is the one that should be followed
P4F1.1: a civil war breaks out, and the winners get to decide who is right about what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2: there is agreement on who the most important shamans of the society are, and society asks them to know what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2.1: there is agreement among the most important shamans on what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2.2: there is disagreement among the most important shamans on what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2.2.1: there is a physical conflict among the shamans in order to determine who is right (for example a sword duel, fighting until death... the surviving shaman(s) is/are correct about what the most powerful gods say about racism).
P4F1.2.2.2: there is an intellectual type of competition among the shamans in order to determine who is right
P4F1.2.2.3: there is a olympic event among the shamans in order to determine who is right (the winner of the olympic event means (s)he's right about what the most powerful gods say about racism)
P4F1.3: the majority of people (regardless of their social status/wealth) gets to decide who is right about what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.4: society (however, the higher their social status/wealth, the more influential their opinion is) gets to decide what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.5: freedom: the people who believe the most powerful gods command racism will be racist, those who believe that the most powerful gods are silent about racism, will do whatever they want, and those who believe that the most powerful gods prohibit racism, will not be racist (or will be against racism).
P4F1.5.1: freedom with segregation: people will basically choose whether to be or not to be racists, depending on what they believe the most powerful gods say about racism. However, the various groups will be segregated among themselves, only interacting with people who have their own beliefs about racism and what the most powerful gods say about it.
P4F1.5.2: freedom without segregation. There will be differences in opinions over what the most powerful gods say. However, there will still be social interaction between the people of differing beliefs.
P4F1.6: there is an olympic event, and the winners will get to decide what the most powerful gods say about racism.
P4F2: there is agreement over what the most powerful gods say about racism, but disagreement that the opinion of the most powerful gods is the one that should be followed (e.g. compared to the opinion of the least powerful gods).
P4F2.1: edict made by the ruler(s) of the society. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be awarded with a more powerful position in society. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be punished by confering them a low social status, and will be made to pay a harsh punitive tax, so that they can understand that those who follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be the least powerful among the mortals, and those who follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be the most powerful among the mortals. A sort of divine reflection into the world of the mortals, a sort of balance between the divine world and the world of the mortals.
P4F2.2: edict made by the ruler(s) of the society. Opposite of the previous one. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be awarded with a more powerful position in society. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be punished by confering them a low social status, and will be made to pay a harsh punitive tax, so that they can understand that those who follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be the most powerful among the mortals, and those who follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be the least powerful among the mortals. A sort of divine reflection into the world of the mortals, a sort of balance between the divine world and the world of the mortals, by stressing the fact that the gods are unlike the mortals, and that their condition is opposite/inverse to that of the mortals.
P4F2.3: civil war breaks out. The winners will get to decide whether the opinion of the most powerful gods, or the opinion of the least powerful gods is that which should be followed.
P4F2.4: an olympic event will estabilish the winners, which they'll be the ones who get to decide whether to follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, or that of the least powerful gods.
P4F3: there is disagreement both over what the most powerful gods say, and also over whether the opinion of the most powerful gods, or the least powerful gods should be followed.

Causal direction between divine morality and factual events (in some senses similar to the Euthyphro's dilemma)

1: Divine prohibition causes an action to be physically impossible to perform. E.g. (if our current understanding is correct) travelling faster than light is prohibited by God - a conceptualization of God that I call "Physis".
2: Divine prohibition causes an action to cause undesiderable effects (which are interpreted as a punishment in this view): e.g. touching fire with bare hands causes extreme pain. Or rather, it's God/Physis that causes the fact that touching fire with bare hands causes extreme pain.
3: No causal relationship between divine prohibition and factual events.
4: The fact that an action is physically impossible causes God to deem it as "immoral", as an action being physically impossible is considered by God to be "evidence" of its immorality. This view is compatible with a non-creator God, or a creator God that is not omniscient nor omnipotent, or perhaps just one of the two.
5: Anthropogenic divine morality: a culture deeming a certain action morally deplorable causes that society to claim (correctly or incorrectly, that's beyond the scope of this view) that God (or the gods, collectively, or some important morality-related gods) deemed it immoral, and that since the set of rules comes from divinity, it must be followed.
6: Divine (but anthropocentric, at least in a normative sense) divine morality: divine prohibition/allowance/obligation (regardless of how that information is obtained) causes a certain society/culture to deem an action immoral/acceptable/mandatory, most likely because God (or the gods) is deemed as wise and that therefore, even when a set of rules is considered strange or non-sensical, or even detrimental, it's considered to be wise to follow because "God knows best". This assumes that either God is benevolent towards humankind, or that God is malevolent and that disobedience will bring a curse (either only to the people who disobeyed, or to the entire society, as a form of collective punishment).

12.26: Gods and natural disasters

Possible relationships between the gods and natural disasters:

Atheist interpretations:

1: Gods do not exist, and natural disasters have natural, impersonal causes.
2: Gods do not exist, and natural disasters are caused by human beings' collective subconscious (or perhaps even non-human animals' collective subconscious)

Deist interpretations:

1: God exists, but (s)he is not interested in human affairs, so the natural disasters still have natural, impersonal causes, and are not caused by God.
2: God exists, but (s)he is not interested in human affairs, and natural disasters are caused by human beings' collective subconscious (or perhaps even non-human animals' collective subconscious).

Monotheistic interpretations:

God causes the natural disasters, possible reasons?
1: To punish people for sin
2: Because God has mood swings, so (s)he causes destruction whenever (s)he feels angry or upset, but humans are not the reason for this anger, and they have done nothing wrong. God is just venting his/her anger into the physical world (s)he has created.
2.1: Humans can't do anything to placate God's anger.
2.2: Humans can placate God's anger in some ways. Some examples:
2.2.1: By offering a sacrifice to God
2.2.2: By praying to God
2.2.3: By praising God
2.2.4: By following specific rituals or behaviors

Duotheistic interpretations:

Types of duotheism:

Good/evil duotheism
Male/female duotheism
Strong/weak duotheism
Creation/destruction duotheism
Light/darkness duotheism
Mind/matter duotheism
Polarity duotheism

Good/evil duotheism (a good god and an evil god):

1: the evil god causes the natural disasters. Possible details:
1.1: The good god is omnipotent and can stop the evil god at any time, but (s)he decided not to, because humans have sinned, or for other reasons (such as... the good god didn't feel like stopping the evil god, for example)
1.2: The good god is not omnipotent, and (s)he needs prayers or offerings from humans to gain more power and prevent the evil god from causing more natural disasters. Or perhaps human kindness and generosity could empower the good god as well.
1.3: The good god is not omnipotent, and is less powerful than the evil god, so the good god cannot do anything to prevent the evil god from causing harm to humans. Possible details:
1.3.1: The evil god cannot be appeased by humans. The disasters stop whenever the evil god gets bored of causing disasters. The lack of disasters is always temporary.
1.3.2: The evil god can be appeased by humans through either sacrifices, prayers (to the evil god), by following specific rituals or behaviors, or by denouncing the good god.
2: Neither the good or the evil god cause natural disasters. Natural disasters have natural, impersonal causes. Possible details:
2.1: It is possible to convince the good god to reduce the amount of natural disasters and offer humans some degree of protection.
2.2: It is not possible to convince the good god to reduce the amount of natural disasters or to offer humans some degree of protection.

Note: now that I'm thinking of it... is it really a "good god" if it's unwilling (but capable) of reducing or eliminating natural disasters? Nay! I'll rewrite this document eventually!

Polytheistic interpretations:

1: (Polydeism?) Gods exist but are not involved in human affairs, so the explanation is that natural disasters have natural and impersonal causes, just like in the atheist and deist interpretations.
2: Gods exist but they didn't cause the natural disasters (which have natural, impersonal causes), but gods can stop the natural disasters if they are given offerings, prayers, or even just kindness and generosity among humans.
3: Gods exist and they do cause natural disasters:
3.1: To punish humans for sin/impiety
3.2: Because the gods are angry for their own, but not because of humans (who have done nothing wrong), but for their own reasons, and to vent their anger they cause anger and destruction on Earth, and
3.2.1: Humans can't do anything about it.
3.2.2: Humans can appease them through offerings, prayers etc.
4: Gods exist but they do not cause natural disasters directly. Rather, the absence of the protector deities is the cause of the natural disasters. This view assumes that the default condition on Earth consists in very frequent natural disasters, death and misery, and the lack of natural disasters is attributed to the benevolent activity of the protector deities, who sometimes protect humans from the natural disasters (which have natural and impersonal causes, in this view). What causes the benevolence of the protector deities could be up to discussion.
4.1: The gods are omnipotent and their decision to withdraw their benevolence is their own decision.
4.2: The gods are not omnipotent and their power has to be fueled by humans in order for the gods to be able to give humans their benevolence, sometimes even if the gods want to give benevolence to humans, they are too weak to do that.

Interpretation of the theological view that says every human being contains a god or a goddess in their subconscious mind:

1: Natural disasters have natural, impersonal causes. They are not caused by divine subconscious activity.
2: Natural disasters are caused by divine subconscious activity. Some thoughts, memories etc. in the subconscious mind of humans can be the cause of natural disasters nearby, or somewhere else in the world.
2.1: It is possible to find some ways to tap into the subconscious of either an individual or that of the entire society and see if there's a way to reduce natural disasters by modifying people's subconscious.
2.2: It is not possible to enter the subconscious in a way that helps reduce natural disasters.

12.27: How to classify political ideologies

How to categorize political ideologies

One approach, seemingly particularly common (at least on social media), is the one-dimensional left-right paradigm. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" may have several definitions, depending on the context, but on social media discussions it's often not clear what it is meant, and these words are often used to obfuscate meaning and promote propaganda rather than to be informative and clear. Possible definitions:

1: left/right as intended by USA/western culture in late 2010's/early 2020's. Mainly social issues and some economical issues. This seems to be a popular way to categorize it on social media.
2: left/right as purely economical. Marxism to free market capitalism. Relatively more niche than the definition above, and is used in conversations more focused on economics rather than social issues.
3: left/right as intended by USA/western culture in late 2010's/early 2020's. Nazis are far-left. (This seems to be more common among people who self-identify as "right-wing")
4: left/right as intended by USA/western culture in late 2010's/early 2020's. Nazis are far-right. (This seems to be more common among people who self-identify as "left-wing")
5: left/right as purely economical. Marxism-centrism-capitalism-freemarket-nazism. (a bit nonsensical IMHO, but commonly accepted)
6: left/right as purely economical. Marxism-nazism-centrism-capitalism-freemarket.
7: left/right as purely related to the views of the mainstream media at a specific time. Left is mainstream media, right is whatever does not fit within the mainstream media narrative ("right-wing" may be seen as either one ideology or as a collection of different ideologies that merely do not fit within mainstream media narrative, depending on one's own categorization habits). This definition seems to be often used by mainstream media journalists. In this context, "right-wing" may indicate someone who is labelled as a "conspiracy theorist", or someone who promotes "pseudoscience", or someone who is skeptical of climate change (anthropogenic and/or natural), or someone who is against forced vaccinations, or someone who believes in paranormal phenomena or UFO's and so on. This definition is fundamentally different from any other definition listed above and often refers to views that are neither social nor economical, yet it seems to be used frequently in some contexts (like mainstream journalism). Less obfuscating words that one may use may be "pro-estabilishment" and "anti-estabilishment" instead.
8: left/right as purely cultural, defined in the way Twitter users would define it. Same as #1 but completely disregarding economical principles.
9: left/right as change/stability(?) (I've seen this definition quite a few times but personally I find it rather non-sensical)
10: left/right as opposition/affirmation of social/economical hierarchies (a bit vague but makes sense IMHO, especially from a Marxist perspective)
11: right is "liberal" (in the "liberty" sense, so like, pro-LGBT, pro-marijuana, pro-polyamory, pro-guns, pro-abortion, pro-free speech, anti-censorship etc.) whereas left is "strict/conservative/authoritarian", "control over freedom", and stuff like that. Does not fit within the mainstream USA paradigm but I've seen it used by libertarians, who may focus more on consistent principles of "freedom" rather than adopting arbitrary views based on historical contingencies.
12: Same as #11 but switched, so that right is "authoritarian" and left is "liberal/libertarian".
13: "Left" is the Democratic Party of the USA, while "right" is the Republican Party of the USA. This however implies that "left" and "right" are not ideologies, since the stances and values of the (de-facto) only two political parties in the USA that can realistically win a presidential election can and do change over the course of time. I may make a separate page over whether an ideology can change through time, since this has interesting parallels with "Christianity" and how the ideas of the people who called (or still call) themselves "Christians" changed in the last two millennia.

Other approaches (will be expanded and defined better):

2: liberal-authoritarian
3: pragmatic-liberal-traditional (e.g. pragmatic is focused on achieving a goal, liberal means trying to maximize "freedom" (however that is defined), and traditional means to keep things as they were before, can be a synonym of "conservative" (not in the US political sense, of course))
4: How that political ideology views violence (e.g. against whom it is justified, for which purposes it is justified, in which cases it is justified etc)
5: How that political ideology views happiness (e.g. who should be happy or deserves to be happy, through what kind of means one should or is allowed to attain happiness, what sources of happiness are allowed, its views on hedonism/asceticism etc)
6: pragmatic/idealistic/traditional (pragmatic: the result is prioritized, idealistic: an ideal is prioritized, traditional: tradition is prioritized)
7: who benefits (cui bono)? self(individual)/other(individual)/community(that one identifies as part of)/community(that one does not identify as part of)/the rulers in charge/a particular deity
8: anti-violence/pro-violence
9: selfishness/altruism
10: BSD-like freedom/GNU-like freedom (BSD-like freedom means, for example, that a company can apply restrictive rules, e.g. a big tech social media can censor any speech they don't like from their platform, and is therefore more in line with mainstream libertarianism, while GNU-like freedom would disallow that).

I also wanted to do "how political ideologies view hugs" but it's likely way too specific and arbitrary. It may not be super different from any other arbitrary behavior, but... that can at least partly indicate the social/cultural views, plus it's funny for me to do weird things, so... I may do it.

Old text (will be expanded and explained better in the new text)

How to categorize political ideologies

1: One-dimensional left-right paradigm
2: One-dimensional liberal-authoritarian paradigm
3: Two-dimensional left-right liberal-authoritarian paradigm
4: Triangle: liberal+left+right
5: Circle: centrism+left+right+extremism(far-left/far-right)
6: One-dimensional pragmatic-liberal-traditional paragidm
7: Two-dimensional left-right pragmatic-liberal-traditional paradigm
8: Double one-dimensional far-left/left/centrist-left & far-right/right/centrist-right (centrist-left and centrist-right are far from each other)
9: V-Shaped: Far-left/left/centre/right/far-right
10: Inverted V-Shaped: centre-left/left/extremism(far-left&far-right)/right/centre-right
11: One dimensional moderate-extreme paradigm
12: Branched paradigm: many different types of authoritarianism converging into one liberalism
13: Branched paradigm: many different types of right-wing (i.e. anti-mainstream media) converging into one left-wing (mainstream media ideology)
14: Branched paradigm: many different types of pragmatism (with various different goals) converging into one traditionalism (where the goal is maintaining tradition for its own sake)
15: Three-dimensional cube left-right liberal-authoritarian traditional-pragmatic paradigm
16: Various one-dimensional lines of pragmatic-traditional spectrums
17: Various one-dimensional lines of left-right spectrums
18: Various one-dimensional lines of liberal-authoritarian spectrums
19: How that political ideology views violence (e.g. against whom it is justified, for which purposes it is justified, in which cases it is justified etc)
20: How that political ideology views happiness (e.g. who should be happy or deserves to be happy, through what kind of means one should or is allowed to attain happiness, what sources of happiness are allowed, its views on hedonism/asceticism etc)
21: How that political ideology views hugs (this may at least partly indicate what kind of cultural/social views this ideology has)

One-dimensional spectrums (line):

1: left/right
2: pragmatic/idealistic/traditional (pragmatic: the result is prioritized, idealistic: an ideal is prioritized, traditional: tradition is prioritized)
3: liberal/authoritarian
4: who benefits? self(individual)/other(individual)/community(that one identifies as part of)/community(that one does not identify as part of)/the rulers in charge/a particular deity
5: anti-violence/pro-violence
6: selfishness/altruism
7: BSD-like freedom/GNU-like freedom (BSD-like freedom means, for example, that a company can apply restrictive rules, e.g. a big tech social media can censor any speech they don't like from their platform, and is therefore more in line with mainstream libertarianism, while GNU-like freedom would disallow that).
8: anarchy (i.e. lack of hierarchies)-extreme hierarchies

Two-dimensional spectrums (square):

1: x: left-right, y: liberal-authoritarian
2: x: pragmatic/idealistic/traditional, y: liberal-authoritarian (i.e. in this case, it's mostly about how much people can deviate from the officially sanctioned ideology/behavior)
3: x: social equality-inequality, y: liberal-authoritarian (i.e. in this case, it's mostly about the prevalence of people who can deviate significantly from the officially sanctioned ideology/behavior)
4: x: amount of hierarchy, y: what the people who are superior in the hierarchy can do to the people below

Three-dimensional spectrums (cube):

1: x: left-right, y: (legally, not culturally) liberal-authoritarian, z: culturally (not legally) liberal-authoritarian

Four-dimensional spectrums (tesseract):

Definitions:

Left/right:

1: left/right as intended by USA/western culture in late 2010's/early 2020's. Mainly social issues and some economical issues.
2: left/right as purely economical. Marxism to free market capitalism.
3: left/right as intended by USA/western culture in late 2010's/early 2020's. Nazis are far-left.
4: left/right as intended by USA/western culture in late 2010's/early 2020's. Nazis are far-right.
5: left/right as purely economical. Marxism-centrism-capitalism-freemarket-nazism. (a bit nonsensical IMHO, but commonly accepted)
6: left/right as purely economical. Marxism-nazism-centrism-capitalism-freemarket.
7: left/right as purely related to the views of the mainstream media at a specific time. Left is mainstream media, right is whatever does not fit within the mainstream media narrative ("right-wing" may be seen as one ideology or as a collection of different ideologies that merely do not fit within mainstream media narrative, depending on one's own categorization habits).
8: left/right as purely cultural, defined in the way Twitter users would define it.
9: left/right as change/stability(?)
10: left/right as opposition/affirmation of social/economical hierarchies
11: left is "liberal" (in the "liberty" sense, so like, pro-LGBT, pro-marijuana, pro-polyamory, pro-guns, pro-abortion, pro-free speech, anti-censorship etc.) whereas right is "strict", "control over freedom", and stuff like that. Does not fit within the contemporary USA paradigm.

12.28: Interactions with the gods

Monotheism (coming soon)

Polytheism

1: Indifference/inaction
2: Worship (i.e. recognize that they are superior and that we as mortals are inferior)
3: Following (i.e. trying to follow their path... it's more like a self-improvement thing compared to 'worship')
4: Do ut des (I give so that you will give) (transactional polytheism): a relationship with the gods based on offerings towards them so that they will give favors to us humans in return. Very transactional. The Romans did it.
5: Gratitude-theism: a relationship with the gods based on gratitude. The gods have already given us so much good stuff, so it's natural to display gratefulness towards them
6: Learn their teachings, and achieve new metaphysical knowledge.
7: Curse them, hate them.
7.1: Curse them on the basis that they are gods (maltheism/misotheism)
7.2: Curse only the ones that represent things one may oppose (e.g. war, famines, disasters, suffering, maybe death etc.) while being neutral or perhaps even admiring/worshipping the gods that represent things one may admire. In the case of elemental polytheism, it's currently unclear to me which elements one may oppose, as things like fire, water etc. can be both damaging or beneficial depending on the context.
8: Devotional polytheism: a relationship with the gods based on offering towards them... for nothing in return (really?!). But why?
8.1: A sense of identity? May be able to self-identify as "polytheist" and get bragging rights... but why? You're a polytheist with the other approaches as well. Perhaps an explanation is that you'd like to receive something from the gods, but the gods are not giving you any gift... (or maybe they did and you just didn't notice?)
8.2: Unspecified reason.
8.3: Purely for the love/devotion towards the gods (or some gods).
9: Des (you give) (perhaps very similar to #5 gratitude-theism?): a relationship with the gods based on their offering towards you.
9.1. (identical to #5 gratitude-theism?): the gods have already given you so many things, the only thing to do is to recognize it, and not take the "little pleasures" for granted.
9.2: the gods will give you good things in the future, you don't have to give the gods anything or do anything in particular. The gods will please you, sooner or later. But why haven't they done that already?

Etc. etc.

12.29: Islamoid Polytheism

Some media in Pangea promotes/describes "Islamoid Polytheism". That means, a form of Polytheism that is as similar to Islam as possible (the -oid suffix means "similar to"). A Gaian would likely find this idea very strange since Islam is extremely hostile towards Polytheism. This is a polytheistic religion, or rather, a collection of polytheistic religions, as similar to Islam as possible.

Islamoid Polytheism (conceptualization 1):

-99 Gods (like the 99 names of Allah)
-Death penalty for homosexuality
-Death penalty for apostasy (in this case, "apostasy" is defined as "abandoning the submission towards the pantheon of the 99 deities")
-Women have no rights
-If you don't submit to the pantheon of 99 gods you'll burn in hell forever in afterlife, tortured forever by those 99 gods simultaneously.
-Muslims (and anyone who is not an Islamoid Polytheist, tbh) are considered "infidels", "impious" and "blasphemers" since they submit to a god not found among the pantheon of 99 gods, and they deny the existence of all 99 gods of the Islamoid pantheon.
-None of the 99 gods are pro-LGBT or feminists
-Alcohol is forbidden
-Eating pork is forbidden
-Pilgrimage to [some place, I guess] is mandatory and one of the pillars of Islamoid Polytheism
-Praying 5 times a day to the gods is mandatory
-Iconography is forbidden. It's blasphemous to draw or depict the gods in any way.
-Theft is punished by cutting the hands of the thief.
-Female rape victims are to be stoned to death
-Sex before or outside of marriage is forbidden
-Music is either forbidden, or just frowned upon (in the more "liberal" versions of Islamoid Polytheism).
-The gods have no moral diversity, they all agree with the same moral rules. Their differences are what the gods and goddesses represent. For example, god of fire, god of death, life, afterlife, fire, water, ice, wind, thunder, war, abundance, goddess of the Moon, fertility, Sun etc.
-Fasting during Ramadan is mandatory.

How to reconcile one, very specific set of rules with multiple gods?

1: Every god has the same set of rules, there are no moral differences between the gods. The differences are in terms of whether a god is of lightning, wind, death, crops, rain, etc.
2: There is one 'god of rules' (in this case, the god associated with the Islamoid set of rules), and that is the god whose rules must be followed. The other gods are not moral-givers, though they may be useful to have in a pantheon for other reasons (e.g. they can help with the crops or something).
3: No god by itself has the full set of rules, the one set of rules is constructed from the prohibitions and requirements of every god added together: in the case of Islamoid Polytheism, there is a god of anti-homosexuality, a god of anti-alcohol, a god of anti-bacon, a god of anti-"sex before/outside marriage", a god of anti-apostasy, a god of anti-iconography and so on. The prohibitions and requirements of all the gods combined together is what forms the Islamoid set of rules.
4: The rules that one should follow has nothing to do with the gods, but there is one, say, "objective" set of rules, based on "society's best interest". So, yeah, there can be versions of Islamoid Polytheism where the set of rules does not come from the gods but from human beings who have decided that the Islamoid set of rules is the best set of rules that can ever be.

12.30: Monopersonal vs multipersonal

An idea that some Pangean media explores is that Internet content can be divided conceptually into "mono-personal" and "multi-personal". Mono-personal content is the result of one person publishing something e.g. a video, a blog post, a song, an indie one-developer videogame, and so on. Multi-personal content is the result of multiple people interacting with each other e.g. a forum discussion, a comment section under a video, the "like/dislike ratio" of a video/post/etc.

12.31: One set of rules with polytheism

How to reconcile one single set of rrules with a polytheistic religion:

1: Every god has the same set of rules, there are no moral differences between the gods. The differences are in terms of whether a god is of lightning, wind, death, crops, rain, etc.
2: There is one 'god of rules', and that is the god whose rules must be followed. The other gods are not rule-givers, though they may be useful to have in a pantheon for other reasons (e.g. they may help with the crops).
3: No god by itself has the full set of rules, the one set of rules is constructed from the prohibitions and requirements of every god added together. Either this cause no contradiction, or, if a contradiction arises, then:
3.1: Whenever there is a contradiction about the permissibility of a specific action, then that action is deemed allowed.
3.2: Whenever there is a contradiction about the permissibility of a specific action, then that action is deemed prohibited.
3.3: One of the gods is either ignored (in terms of rules) or kicked out of the pantheon. There may be methods to decide which god's morality to reject.
4: Rule of the majority of the gods (opinions of equal worth).
5: Rule of the majority of the gods (opinions' worth may differ, for example based on the deity's strength or wisdom).
6: Rule of the majority of the strong gods.
7: Rule of the majority of the wise gods.
8: The set of rules that one should follow has nothing to do with the gods, but there is one, say, "objective" set of rules that must be followed, based on "society's best interest".

12.32: Racism

Note: this is an old text. I may rewrite it in a tidier manner eventually, as I learned how to generalize ideas better and better understand the combinatorial aspect of my philosophical approach, instead of just writing random ideas with poor generalization/combinatorial mechanisms.

Philosophy of racism

Possible (reasonable?) definitions/forms of racism:

1: Treating individuals differently based on their race, regardless of concepts of superiority or inferiority. Not necessarily better or worse (though it could be as well), but definitely in a different way.
2: Believing that a race (not necessarily one's own) is better or worse than another one, but not necessarily implying a difference in treatment towards individuals.
3: Believing that a race (not necessarily one's own) is better or worse than another one, and treating individuals accordingly.
4: Separatism: believing that no race is inherently better or worse than other ones, but still, wishing for each race to stay only among people of their own race (however 'race' is defined... there can be several different categorizations... more on this later)
5: Genocidialism: believing that only one (or more than one, but still a limited amount) race (however that is defined) has the right to exist (and every other should be killed), either on a specific land (land-specific genocidialism), or across the entire Earth (absolute genocidialism).
6: Believing a race should be treated differently and/or have more/less/different rights than another one, but yet without necessarily believing the races themselves are better/worse/different.

More broad and vague definitions:

1: Believing that at least two races exist (though not necessarily having any normative belief about different treatment between races, or descriptive beliefs about one's race superiority or inferiority)

Silly/inverted/doublespeak definitions:

1: Having any worldview that does not fit within the mainstream media ideology in the USA/western countries in the late 2010's/early 2020's, regardless of whether the views are related to the concept of 'race' or not.
2: Being anti-immigration
3: Being "anti-woke" (regardless of whether the ideas promoted are related to the concept of 'race' or not)
4: Being opposed to "woke authoritarianism"
5: Being opposed to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Communism, Socialism or related economic policies
6: Believing that 'races' do not exist, or that the treatment between different 'races' should be equal (example of inverted meaning/doublespeak)
7: "Anyone who does not agree with me [regardless of whether the ideas that are disagreed about are related to the concept of 'race' or not]"
8: (usually defined as "anti-white") believing that it is good (or even just permissible, in some interpretations) for "white" people to have children with "non-white" people. Such "racial mixing" is viewed by some as "white genocide", despite the fact that there is no killing of anyone involved with this practice. This definition is often used by "white purists" (not to be confused with "white supremacists" or "white separatists", they are three different ideologies, despite how the mainstream media often conflates them for propaganda purposes), who want to conserve "the white race" (as to how "white" is defined, some adhere to the definition that the USA government uses, while others might be more strict and only include "people of northern European descent" within the definition). The "anti-black" variant of this term can sometimes be seen used as well. Not to be confused by other words that indicate "anti-black racism" or "anti-white racism" but with a different set of assumptions.
9: Racism is a monstruous animal that is a mix of a gorilla, a bull, a lion and a bear, sometimes (allegedly, though with no official confirmation) sighted in the wilderness of the north-east of Pangea

Racial categorizations (there must be AT LEAST TWO different races in one's own racial beliefs in order for one to be racist, it's impossible to be racist with one or zero races):

Three approaches:

1: Someone born in a specific place, regardless of the place of birth of his/her ancestors. The place of birth is what defines one's 'race' in this approach, regardless of ancestry.
2: Someone whose ancestors have been born in a specific place, regardless of the place (s)he was born. Ancestry is what defines one's 'race' in this approach, regardless of place of birth.
3: Mixed approach.

-With 2 races:

2.1: Racial categorization based on skin color alone. 2 different races. White + black. What the US racial categorization calls "asian" is considered "white" in this racial categorization.
2.2: Racial categorization based on the hemisphere of birth. 2 different races. "Northerners" are those who are born in the northern hemisphere, "Southerners" are those who are born in the southern hemisphere. Those who are born exactly at the equator are considered "mixed race", but efforts are made to distinguish the two races whenever possible.

-With 3 races:

3.1: Racial categorization based on skin color alone. 3 different races. White + black + something in-between (like many people in India and Pakistan). 3.2: Racial categorization based on continent of birth. 3 different races. Afro-Eurasians (those who are born in either Africa, Europe or Asia) + Americans (those who are born either in North America or South America) + 'other' (those who are born anywhere else, for example Australia).
3.3: Modified version of the USA racial categorization that merges "white people" and "black people" into one category called "blight people". Asians and Native Americans stay the same. 3 different races.
3.4: Racial categorization based on continent based on ethnicity/ancestry. 3 different races. What the US calls "white" and "black" both belong into one group in this categorization, the "Afro-Eurasians". Native Americans are classified as "Americans", and aborigenous Australians are classified as 'other'.

-With 4 races:

4.1: USA government racial categorization. 4 different races. White + black + asian + native american.
4.2: Race categorization based on continent. 4 different races. North American + Afro-Eurasian + South American + Australian/New-Zealander/Pacific-Islander/Oceanian.

With 5 races:

5.1: Modified version of the USA racial categorization. White + black + arab + asian + native american.
5.2: American (North/Central American & South America) + European + African + Asian + Oceanian (Australian, New Zealander, Pacific Islander etc.)

-With 6 races:

6.1: Racial categorization based on the continent of birth. 6 races: North American, South American, European, African, Asian, Australian/Oceanian/etc.
6.2: Racial categorization based on macro-cultural areas. 6 races: English-speaking world (USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and some others) + Latin-speaking world (South America, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Romania, and some others) + non-Latin Europe (for example Greece, Germany, Scandinavia, Finland, Hungary, Serbia, Poland etc.) + Asia + Africa + Middle East.

-With 7 races:

7.1: North American + South American + European + Asian + Oceanian + Saharan African + Sub-Saharan African
7.2: North American + South American + European + Western Asian + Eastern Asian + Oceanian + African
7.3: North American + South American + Western European + Eastern European + Asian + Oceanian + African

-With 8 races:

8.1: USA/Canadian, Mexican/Central American, South American, European, Arab/Middle Eastern, Asian, African, Australian/Oceanian.
8.2: Macro-cultural areas: English-speaking world (USA, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and some others) + Latin-speaking world (South America, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Romania, and some others) + non-Latin Europe (for example Greece, Germany, Scandinavia, Finland, Hungary, Serbia, Poland etc.) + Western Asia/Middle East + Eastern Asia + Northern Africa + Western Sub-Saharian Africa + Eastern Sub-Saharian Africa.

-With 10 races:

10.1: No description in particular. 10 different races (by ethnicity and ancestry, not birth in a specific place): Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Arabs, non-Arab middle eastern people, sub-saharian africans, eastern asians, south-asians (Indians, Bangladeshi, Pakistani etc.), Russians, Native Americans (both North America and South America), Aborigenous Australians.
10.2: North American + South American + Western European + Eastern European + Saharan African + Western Sub-Saharan African + Eastern Sub-Saharan African + Western Asian + Eastern Asian + Oceanian
10.3: North American + South American + Western European + Eastern European + Arab + Western Sub-Saharan African + Eastern Sub-Saharan African + Western Asian + Eastern Asian + Oceanian
10.4: North American (USA & Canada only) + Central/South-American + Northern European + Southern European + Arab + Sub-Saharan African + Northern Asian (mostly north of 45 °N parallel) + Southern Asian + Oceanian (Australia & New Zealand only) + Oceanian (rest of Oceania)
10.5: North American + South American + Northern European + Southern European + Arab + Western Sub-Saharan African + Eastern Sub-Saharan African + Western Asian + Eastern Asian + Oceanian
10.6: Macro-Cultural areas: Western Americans (western part of North America + wester part of South America), Eastern Americans, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Western Africans, Eastern Africans, Western Asians/Middle-Easterners, Eastern Asian, Western Australians, Eastern Australians
10.7: Macro-Cultural areas: Western Americans (both North and South America) & Western Europeans, Eastern Americans & Eastern Europeans, North-Western Africans, North-Eastern Africans, Western Sub-Saharan Africans, Eastern Sub-Saharan Africans, Western South Africans, Eastern South Africans, Asians, Oceanians

-With 11 races:

11.1: North American + South American + Western European + Eastern European + Western Asian + Eastern Asian + Arab/Middle-Eastern + South Asian (India/Bangladesh/Pakistan/Thailand/etc.) + Western Sub-Saharan African + Eastern Sub-Saharan African + Oceanian

-With 12 races:

12.1: Racial categorization based on continent + western/eastern side of that continent. 12 different races. Western North Americans, Eastern North Americans, Western South Americans, Eastern South Americans, Western Africans, Eastern Africans, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Western Asians, Eastern Asians, Western Australians, Eastern Australians.
12.2: Racial categorization based on continent + northern/southern side of that continent. Canadians/USA + (rest of) North-Americans + South America (except Argentina/Chile/Uruguay) + Argentina/Chile/Uruguay + Northern European + Southern European + Northern Asian + Southern Asian + Saharan African + Sub-Saharan African + Australian/NZ + (rest of) Oceanian

-With 14 races:

14.1: Racial categorizations based on the latitude someone is born at, a different race every 10 degrees of latitude. 14 different races. Between 70 °N and 80 °N, 60-70 °N, 50-60 °N, 40-50 °N, 30-40 °N, 20-30 °N, 10-20 °N, 0-10 °N, 0-10 °S, 10-20 °S, 20-30 °S, 30-40 °S, 40-50 °S, 50-60 °S.

-With 16 races:

16.1: Continent/macro-cultural/USA-racial hybrid ("American" here means USA or Canadian): "White" American, "Black" American, "Asian" American, Native American, Central American, South American, Western European, Eastern European, Northern African/Arab, Sub-Saharan African, South African, Middle Eastern/Central Asian, South/South-Eastern Asian (e.g. Pakistan/India/Bangladesh/Thailand/Vietnam/Indonesia/Malaysia/etc.), Eastern Asian, Australia/New Zealand.

-With 24 races:

24.1: Racial categorizations based on continent + north-west/north-east/south-west/south-east sides of those continents. So... 24 different races.

8 billion races:

8000000000.1: Individualism. About 8 billion different races. Every person is its own race.

Unknown/variable number of races:

?.1: Racial categorization based on skin color alone. 4 or more different races, ranging from white then gradually moving towards black (or vice-versa... same thing... "direction" is arbitrary)
?.2: Racial categorization based on the country of birth. About 150+ different races.
?.3: Racial categorization based on country subdivisions. Maybe several thousand different races?
?.4: Thermoracism: racial categorization based on the temperatures of the place someone was born in. Varying number of races depending on the categorization. Isotherm walls might be built to prevent immigration from disliked races.
?.5: Alcohoracism: racial categorization based on how much alcohol per capita the people of the place someone was born in drink on average. Varying number of races depending on the categorization.

Racism implemented by:

1: A minority of individuals
2: The majority of individuals
3: The government
4: A minority of individuals AND the government
5: The majority of individuals AND the government
6: Individuals mostly from specific race(s) are racists, but others mostly aren't.
7: A divine law from one or more gods
8: Criminals (in places where racial discrimination is illegal)
9: Artificial intelligence (in dystopian futuristic settings)
10: Individuals mostly from specific ideology(-ies) are racists, but others mostly aren't.
11: The richest people in society (the poorer, the less they tend to be racist)
12: The poorest people in society (the richer, the less they tend to be racist)
13: Time-specific variation, WHO exactly implements it varies by time (e.g. season, year, holy/unholy days/years, results of war, moon cycles, weather etc.)

Racism implemented in these aspects/forms:

1: Social/cultural racism (e.g. I don't want to be friends with this person because they belong to a race I don't like)
2: Institutional racism (e.g. I won't assume that person as an employee, or, I won't let that person eat at the restaurant I own, because they belong to a race I don't like)
3: Governmental/penal/legal racism (e.g. people of certain race(s) are, explicitly by law, punished more or less severely, if at all)
4: Segregation
4.1: Physical Segregation
4.2: Cultural Segregation
4.3: Both physical and cultural segregation
5: Economical racism: people of certain race(s) are intentionally paid less and/or have to pay more for the same service, not by coincidence, but by explicit written laws.
6: Economical racism (wealth cap): people of certain race(s) are paid the same and have to pay the same as the other races to buy something or pay for some services, but they have a wealth cap and therefore they cannot have more than a specific amount of money and/or material possessions.
7: Social/cultural racism (loss of privileges): people of certain race(s) lack certain privileges that the other races have, such as, for example, being able to have homosexual sex, marrying multiple wives/husbands, driving a car, entering certain areas etc
8: Anti-miscegenation laws: people of "different races" (however the "races" are defined) are not allowed to have kids from each other.

Relationship with the divine:

-Atheist society:

Observation: atheism is the simplest among all theisms. Since there are no gods, there is also no relationship between society and the gods.

0.1: Atheist society. Racism arises for cultural reasons, as there is no god that can say anything in that society.
0.2: Atheist society which is not racist.

-Monotheist society:

Observation: monotheism is more complex than atheism, but less complex than duotheism or polytheism.

1.1: Monotheist society. Racism arises for cultural reasons, and the One God said nothing about racism, and is not a command from God.
1.2: Monotheist society. The One God said nothing about racism, and the society is not racist.
1.3: Monotheist society. Racism arises for cultural reasons, and the One God commands against racism, but the population has rebelled towards that particular view.
1.3.1: The population is racist, not because their goal is to oppose the command of the One God, but because they genuinely believe racism is a good idea, regardless of what the One God says about it.
1.3.2: The population is racist, not because they genuinely believe it's a good idea, but because they want to oppose the command of the One God, regardless of what they (the society) believe about racism.
1.4: Monotheist society. The One God commands against racism, and the population obeys (so it's not a racist society).
1.4.1: The population obeys not because they want to obey to the One God at all costs, but because they genuinely believe racism is a bad idea, regardless of what the One God says about it.
1.4.2: The population obeys not because they genuinely believe racism is a bad idea, but because they want to obey to the One God at all costs, regardless of what they (the society) believe about racism.
1.5: Monotheist society. Racism arises because the One God has commanded people to be racist (either in general, or in a specific way), and the population obeys.
1.5.1: The population obeys not because they want to obey to the One God at all costs, but because they genuinely believe racism is a good idea, regardless of what the One God says about it.
1.5.2: The population obeys not because they genuinely believe racism is a good idea, but because they want to obey to the One God at all costs, regardless of what they (the society) believe about racism.
1.6: Monotheist society. The One God commanded people to be racist, but the population rebels against that one god, and so it's not a racist society.
1.6.1: The population is not racist, not because their goal is to oppose the command of the One God, but because they genuinely believe racism is a bad idea, regardless of what the One God says about it.
1.6.2: The population is not racist, not because they genuinely believe it's a bad idea, but because they want to oppose the command of the One God, regardless of what they (the society) believe about racism.

-Duotheist society:

Observation: duotheism is more complex than monotheism and atheism, but less complex than polytheism.

2.1: Duotheist society: both gods are ambivalent about racism. Racism arises for cultural reasons.
2.2: Duotheist society: one god commands racism and the other is ambivalent about it, and therefore, the population is racist.
2.2.1: The population is racist because they believe racism is a good idea, the reason has nothing to do with pleasing any deity.
2.2.2: The population is racist because they want to be in good relationship with the divine, the reason has nothing to do with genuinely agreeing with the divine about racism.
2.3: Duotheist society: one god commands against racism and the other is ambivalent about it, and the population is racist and mostly follows the ambivalent god.
2.4: Duotheist society: one god commands racism and the other god commands against racism. The population is racist and mostly follows the god that commands racism.
2.5: Duotheist society: both gods command racism, and so the population is racist because they follow a command that both gods share in common with each other.
2.5.1: The population is racist because they believe racism is a good idea, the reason has nothing to do with pleasing any deity.
2.5.2: The population is racist because they want to be in good relationship with the divine, the reason has nothing to do with genuinely agreeing with the divine about racism.
2.6: Duotheist society: both gods command against racism, but the population decides to rebel against that specific view, and is racist anyway.
2.6.1: Society rebels against the gods because they genuinely disagree with the gods, not merely for the sake of rebelling against the gods.
2.6.2: Society rebels against the gods merely for the sake of rebelling against the gods, not because they genuinely disagree with the gods.
2.7: Duotheist society: both gods are ambivalent about racism. The population is not racist.
2.8: Duotheist society: one god commands racism and the other is ambivalent about it, and the population follows the ambivalent god so that they can avoid being racist, and they are not racist.
2.9: Duotheist society: one god commands against racism and the other is ambivalent about it, and the population is not racist.
2.10: Duotheist society: one god commands racism and the other god commands against racism. The population is not racist and mostly follows the god that commands against racism.
2.11: Duotheist society: both gods command racism, but the population decides to rebel against that specific view, and is not racist.
2.11.1: Society rebels against the gods because they genuinely disagree with the gods, not merely for the sake of rebelling against the gods.
2.11.2: Society rebels against the gods merely for the sake of rebelling against the gods, not because they genuinely disagree with the gods.
2.12: Duotheist society: both gods command against racism, and the population obeys them and is not racist.
2.12.1: Society obeys the gods because they genuinely agree with the gods, not merely for the sake of obeying the gods.
2.12.2: Society obeys the gods not because they genuinely agree with the gods, but merely for the sake of obeying the gods.

-Polytheist society:

Observation: Polytheism is the most complex among all theisms, the combinations of what a polytheistic society can be are potentially infinite. This 'table' is therefore, very limited, because writing a 'complete' 'table' of all polytheistic combinations is impossible, it would be literally infinite.

Polytheistic society is (A):

A1: Racist
A2: Non-racist

What the gods say (B) (implies there is some clear agreement among the gods):

B1: The gods command for racism
B2: The gods command against racism
B3: The gods don't command anything in particular regarding racism

Relationship between a society's racism and what the gods say (C)

C1: The population obeys the command of the gods out of fear
C2: The population obeys the command of the gods out of respect
C3: The population already wanted to be like that (either racist or non-racist), that what the gods command is the same is just a coincidence
C4: The gods don't command anything in particular regarding racism, so the population chooses, not the gods.
C5: The population disobeys the command of the gods.

When the gods disagree among each other (D) (implies all gods are equal in validity and strength):

D1: Almost all gods agree with one choice (either for or against racism), only a few gods disagree (opposite opinion or neutrality)
D2: Most gods agree with one choice (either for or against racism), the minority of gods disagree (opposite opinion or neutrality)
D3: An equal number of gods agree with one choice (either for or against racism) and an equal number disagree (opposite opinion or neutrality)
D4: Almost all gods are neutral about racism, only a few gods say something about it (either for or against racism)
D5: Most gods are neutral about racism, the minority of gods say something about it (either for or against racism)
D6: An equal number of gods are neutral about racism, and an equal number say something about it (either for or against racism)

Relationship between a society's racism and what the gods say when there is disagreement among the gods (E):

E1: Monocultural society: society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something
E2: Monocultural society: society obeys what the majority of the gods say.
E2.1: If the majority of the gods is neutral about racism, then society does whatever they prefer.
E2.2: If the majority of the gods is neutral about racism, then society considers what the majority of the gods who DO say something about racism say.
E2.3: If there is an equal number of gods commanding for racism and an equal number commanding against racism:
E2.3.1: The society does whatever they prefer.
E2.3.2: They are racist because they believe racism is more holy.
E2.3.3: They are not racist, because they believe lack of racism is more holy.
E2.4: Monocultural society: society obeys whatever the minority of the gods say. Why?
E2.4.1: They believe that being the majority has corrupted those gods who all agree with that notion. They believe it's always the minority, among humans and gods alike, that has wisdom.
E2.4.2: They believe that humans are inferior to the gods, and that therefore they should be humble and follow what a lesser amount of gods decides, because following the path of a high amount of gods equals to arrogance and a sense of superiority, almost as if they want to become like those gods.
E2.5: Multicultural society: each culture decides which (if any) divine guidance to follow.
E2.5.1: The majority of people should follow that most gods say, and the minority of people should follow what the minority of gods say. That is done to ensure harmony between the world of the humans and the world of the gods.
E2.5.2: Another belief about ensuring harmony between the world of the humans and the world of the gods could be the opposite: the majority of the people should follow what the minority of the gods say, and the minority of the people should follow what the majority of the gods say.
E2.5.3: Each culture freely chooses which (if any) divine guidance to follow, not considering whether something is the majority or the minority.
E2.5.3.1: They believe their decision is their own, and not associate their decision to any god.
E2.5.3.2: They believe their decision reflects the decision of some gods, and they might associate their own culture to one or more gods that has the same opinion about racism as that culture does.

When the gods disagree among each other AND there is a difference in validity and/or strength (F):

Paradigm (P) 1: All gods, regardless of their validity/strength, agree that racism is [either good or bad].

P1F1: Monocultural society: society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something or how strong those gods are.
P1F1.1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say etc. they do happen to do the same thing the gods requested, but they do that because they genuinely think it's the better option, not because the gods say so.
P1F2: Monocultural society. Society decides to respect the will of the gods, therefore they do as the gods command.
P1F3: Monocultural society. Society decides to rebel against the gods, and do the opposite as they command.
P1F3.1: Monocultural society. Society decides to rebel against the gods just for the sake of rebelling against the gods. Even if society agreed with the gods, they would still rebel against the gods, because that has higher priority than doing what they think is best.
P1F3.2: Monocultural society. Society decides to rebel against the gods, not for its own sake, but because they genuinely disagree with the gods.
P1F4: Bicultural/multicultural society. Two or more cultures (of varying social classes/prevalence) that can be a combination of any of the above.

Paradigm (P) 2: The most powerful gods have an opinion about racism [either good or bad], and the weakest gods have no opinion about that.

P2F1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something or how strong those gods are.
P2F1.1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say etc. they do happen to do the same thing the most powerful gods requested, but they do that because they genuinely think it's the better option, not because those gods say so.
P2F1.2: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say etc. they do happen to do the same thing the weakest gods requested, but they do that because they genuinely think it's the better option, not because those gods say so.
P2F2: Monocultural society. Society decides to respect the will of the most powerful gods.
P2F3: Monocultural society. Society decides to respect the will of the weakest gods.
P2F3.1: Society decides to respect the will of the weakest gods, because trying to respect the will of the most powerful gods is seen as hubris, arrogance, as trying to be like the most powerful gods. As the weakest gods are seen as closer to humankind compared to the more powerful gods, that's what humankind should follow, in this view. The most powerful gods only hang around among themselves and don't interact with humankind. Because the weakest gods have not expressed an opinion about racism, society does whatever they want.
P2F3.2: Society decides to respect the will of the weakest gods, not because they are the weakest gods, but because, in this paradigm, they are the gods who have expressed no opinion on this issue, therefore granting society more freedom. It is believed, therefore, that the better choice is to follow the gods that give more freedom to humans, regardless of their strength and/or validity. Such an allegiance has the symbolic meaning of choosing freedom over tyranny, and is seen as a praise towards the gods that allow freedom to humans.
P2F4: Monocultural society. Society does the opposite of whatever the most powerful gods command.
P2F4.1: Society does the opposite of whatever the most powerful gods command, not because they think society's own opinion about racism is good, but for the sake of rebelling against the gods.
P2F4.1.1: For the sake of rebelling against the gods in general.
P2F4.1.2: For the sake of rebelling against the most powerful gods. Society feels no need to rebel against the weakest gods.
P2F4.2: Because they think their own opinion about racism is good, so the goal is not to rebel against the gods per se, the goal is to practice (or not practice) racism in the way society prefers.
P2F5: Bicultural/multicultural society. Two or more cultures (of varying social classes/prevalence) that can be a combination of any of the above.

Paradigm (3): The most powerful gods have no opinion about racism, the weakest gods have one [either good or bad].

P3F1: Monocultural society. Society does whatever they prefer regardless of what the gods say or how many gods say something or how strong those gods are. That the most powerful gods give no opinion about racism is just a coincidence, society wouldn't had cared about the gods' opinions anyway.
P3F2: Monocultural society which decides to respect the will of the most powerful gods, therefore they do whatever they want when it comes to racism.
P3F3: Monocultural society which decides to respect the will of the weakest gods.
(...) (same as paradigm 2 for the most part)

Paradigm (4): Bicultural/multicultural society where two or more cultures have differing beliefs in regard to divine opinions about racism.

P4F1: there is disagreement over what the most powerful gods say about racism, but agreement that the opinion of the most powerful gods is the one that should be followed
P4F1.1: a civil war breaks out, and the winners get to decide who is right about what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2: there is agreement on who the most important shamans of the society are, and society asks them to know what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2.1: there is agreement among the most important shamans on what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2.2: there is disagreement among the most important shamans on what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.2.2.1: there is a physical conflict among the shamans in order to determine who is right (for example a sword duel, fighting until death... the surviving shaman(s) is/are correct about what the most powerful gods say about racism).
P4F1.2.2.2: there is an intellectual type of competition among the shamans in order to determine who is right
P4F1.2.2.3: there is a olympic event among the shamans in order to determine who is right (the winner of the olympic event means (s)he's right about what the most powerful gods say about racism)
P4F1.3: the majority of people (regardless of their social status/wealth) gets to decide who is right about what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.4: society (however, the higher their social status/wealth, the more influential their opinion is) gets to decide what the most powerful gods say about racism
P4F1.5: freedom: the people who believe the most powerful gods command racism will be racist, those who believe that the most powerful gods are silent about racism, will do whatever they want, and those who believe that the most powerful gods prohibit racism, will not be racist (or will be against racism).
P4F1.5.1: freedom with segregation: people will basically choose whether to be or not to be racists, depending on what they believe the most powerful gods say about racism. However, the various groups will be segregated among themselves, only interacting with people who have their own beliefs about racism and what the most powerful gods say about it.
P4F1.5.2: freedom without segregation. There will be differences in opinions over what the most powerful gods say. However, there will still be social interaction between the people of differing beliefs.
P4F1.6: there is an olympic event, and the winners will get to decide what the most powerful gods say about racism.
P4F2: there is agreement over what the most powerful gods say about racism, but disagreement that the opinion of the most powerful gods is the one that should be followed (e.g. compared to the opinion of the least powerful gods).
P4F2.1: edict made by the ruler(s) of the society. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be awarded with a more powerful position in society. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be punished by confering them a low social status, and will be made to pay a harsh punitive tax, so that they can understand that those who follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be the least powerful among the mortals, and those who follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be the most powerful among the mortals. A sort of divine reflection into the world of the mortals, a sort of balance between the divine world and the world of the mortals.
P4F2.2: edict made by the ruler(s) of the society. Opposite of the previous one. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be awarded with a more powerful position in society. Those who decide to follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be punished by confering them a low social status, and will be made to pay a harsh punitive tax, so that they can understand that those who follow the opinion of the least powerful gods, will be the most powerful among the mortals, and those who follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, will be the least powerful among the mortals. A sort of divine reflection into the world of the mortals, a sort of balance between the divine world and the world of the mortals, by stressing the fact that the gods are unlike the mortals, and that their condition is opposite/inverse to that of the mortals.
P4F2.3: civil war breaks out. The winners will get to decide whether the opinion of the most powerful gods, or the opinion of the least powerful gods is that which should be followed.
P4F2.4: an olympic event will estabilish the winners, which they'll be the ones who get to decide whether to follow the opinion of the most powerful gods, or that of the least powerful gods.
P4F3: there is disagreement both over what the most powerful gods say, and also over whether the opinion of the most powerful gods, or the least powerful gods should be followed.

---

Possible biases:

1: someone is being treated equally to another race, and it's interpreted as:
1.1: that person is being treated equally
1.2: that person is being treated worse (the bias, more or less conscious, consists in demanding better treatment because of one's race)
1.3: that person is being treated better (the bias, more or less conscious, consists in demanding worse treatment or higher expectations towards that person because of that person's race)
2: someone is being treated worse than another race, and it's interpreted as:
2.1: that person is being treated equally (the bias, more or less conscious, consists in demanding worse treatment or higher expectations towards that person because of that person's race)
2.2: that person is being treated worse
2.3: that person is being treated better (a more extreme bias that consists in demanding worse treatment for that person because of that person's race)
3: someone is being treated better than another race, and it's interpreted as:
3.1: that person is being treated equally (the bias, more or less conscious, consists in demanding better treatment because of one's race)
3.2: that person is being treated worse (a more extreme bias that consists in demanding better treatment for that person because of that person's race)
3.3: that person is being treated better
4: Someone is being treated better for their race, because the person who is doing the better-treatment admires that race.
5: Someone is being treated better for their race, but the person who is doing the better-treatment actually hates/dislikes that race and is doing so only to prove that he/she's not a racist (in a society where racism is generally unpopular).
6: Someone is being treated worse for their race, because the person who is doing the worse-treatment hates/dislikes that race.
7: Someone is being treated worse for their race, but the person who is doing the better-treatment either doesn't care about race, or even admires/likes that race, and is doing the worse-treatment only because it's popular in that society to either hate that specific race, or to be racist in general, and it's unpopular to either admire/like/tolerate that race, or being non-racist in general.

Friendship:

1: Being friends with people based on behavior and not on race
2A: Relative racism: being friends more easily with someone (e.g. tolerating behaviors that would not be tolerated by another race) or less easily (lacking tolerance towards behaviors that would be tolerated by another race):
2A1: Someone is being treated better for their race, because the person who is doing the better-treatment admires that race.
2A2: Someone is being treated better for their race, but the person who is doing the better-treatment actually hates/dislikes that race and is doing so only to prove that he/she's not a racist (in a society where racism is generally unpopular).
2A3: Someone is being treated worse for their race, because the person who is doing the worse-treatment hates/dislikes that race.
2A4: Someone is being treated worse for their race, but the person who is doing the better-treatment either doesn't care about race, or even admires/likes that race, and is doing the worse-treatment only because it's popular in that society to either hate that specific race, or to be racist in general, and it's unpopular to either admire/like/tolerate that race, or being non-racist in general.
2B: Absolute racism: categorically refusing to be friends with someone of:
2.1: with the 'same' race
2.2: with a 'different' race
2.3: with an 'advantaged' race
2.4: with a 'disadvantaged' race
2.5: which 'race' depends on time-specific variables:

Conditions for racism:

1: None. The person is not racist.
2: Relative racism.
2.1: Holding someone to higher standards because they belong to a "race" you dislike.
2.2: Holding someone to lower standards because:
2.2.1: "bigotry of low expectations"
2.2.2: something else, in which you admire that "race" for some reason and excuse a behavior from a person who "belongs" to that group.
3: Absolute racism. Hating or loving someone for their "race", regardless of what they do.
4: Racism through selective concerns. This is neither relative nor absolute racism, but it's also not "non-racism". Basically, you hold everyone to the same standards, regardless of their "race", however, you only (or almost only) bring up examples of bad behaviors from people of "races" you dislike and bring up good behaviors from people of "races" you like. The standards are the same, i.e. the same action is judged in the same manner regardless of what "race" the person who did that action "belongs" to, however, the racism is achieved through ad-hoc selections of concerns and examples. This is precisely what Elon Musk is doing and has been doing for a while. This type of racism is more subtle, as there's no single thing you can point to and say "hey, this is racist!", as when taken individually, each thing said may be a valid concern. In order to understand it's racist you have to see the selection of events, and then it's clear that it's biased and racist, because of the choice of events that one decides to bring up (rather than judging things that person said in isolation, you have to see what they decide to bring up and what they omit, and then it's clear what they're doing).

Time-specific racism, racism is applied:

1: Always
2: Only during full moon
3: Racism towards one race during full moon and towards another race during new moon
4: Only during solstices and equinoxes (the race targeted might be always the same or it can rotate cyclically)
5: Only during leap years
6: Only during certain seasons (e.g. summer or winter)
7: Only during non-sacred years (which years are sacred or non-sacred is judged by:
7.1: Society (democratic vote)
7.2: The government
7.3: The richest people in the society
7.4: The most important shamans who can communicate with the gods
7.5: Tradition
7.6: Artificial intelligence
7.7: Etc.)
8: When one or more specific races are, on average, way richer or poorer than others. There could be 'eras' or 'epochs' being implemented to know exactly when a racist policy is going to be applied.
9: Ultra-dictatorship: whoever gets in power decides if the population will be racist or not. And if it will be racist, IN WHICH MANNER it will be racist.

Number of race categorizations:

1: Only one, and every racist agrees with it
2: Only one (officially recognized), almost every racist agrees with it
3: Only one (officially recognized), most racists agree with it
4: Only one (officially recognized), most racists don't agree with it, and use a different (or several different) categorization(s) of their own
5: Two (officially recognized), racists can freely choose which one to believe in
6: Two (officially recognized), racists cannot freely choose which one to believe in, they are commanded by the government to believe in a specific one, either for the rest of their lives, or for a specific time period
7: Two (officially recognized), racists cannot freely choose which one to believe in, there is only one active racial categorization used at any given time, and it can depend, for example, on whether a year is sacred or not, or depends on moon phases, seasons etc.
8: Three or more (officially recognized), racists can freely choose which one to believe in
9: Three or more (officially recognized), racists cannot freely choose which one to believe in, they are commanded by the government to believe in a specific one, either for the rest of their lives, or for a specific time period
10: Three or more (officially recognized), racists cannot freely choose which one to believe in, there is only one active racial categorization used at any given time, and it can depend, for example, on the level of sacredness of a certain year, or depends on moon phases, seasons etc.
Note: Criminals might use a different categorization than law-abiding citizens. Criminals might use a non-recognized (or forbidden) racial classification, for various purposes.
11: Two or more, but none of them officially recognized, with no agreed standards. Which one(s) to use? Chaos mostly prevails.

Individual opinion towards racism:

1: They are not racists themselves, but they're not against racism done by other people, even if it targets them negatively
2: They are not racists themselves, but they're not against racism done by other people, as long as they're not the ones being negatively discriminated against
3: They are not racists themselves and they're against racism done by other people too, in any circumstance
4: They are racists but they disagree on the official racial categorization, and use a different one (might be criminals if the government bans that specific racial categorization)
5: They are racists and they agree with the official racial categorization but they disagree with the government on which races are better or worse
6: They are racists but only during full moon, regardless of what the government prescribes
7: They are racists and fully agree with what the government (and/or the mainstream media) says about race.

---If the individual opinion differs from that which is legally required:

1: They are willing to die for their worldview
2: They are willing to get to jail for their worldview, but not die
3: They are willing to get to jail and/or die for their worldview only if their worldview is extremely different from the one which is legally required. If the disagreement consists of a minor detail or trivial difference, they will conform to the legally required racist worldview, as it's better to slightly change one's worldview compared to get in jail or executed.
4: They are willing to get to jail and/or die even for very minor differences over their own worldview and the legally required one.
5: They are neither willing to get to jail nor die, they will conform to avoid the harsh wrath of the law.
6: They will conform publicly, but deep inside, privately, they will not believe in the legally required worldview.
7: They will conform publicly and will also genuinely believe in the legally required worldview.
8: They will conform publicly, but deep inside, privately, they will not believe in the legally required worldview, and they might confess that to perhaps two or three very close friends or otherwise trusted people.

What people do if they use a different racial categorization from each other:

1: Try to kill each other. The one(s) that survive(s) (if anyone does in fact survive) will be able to impose their own racial categorization on anyone else they wish.
2: Use a racia franca that is valid whenever two people use a different racial categorization... kinda like English is de-facto the lingua franca on Earth right now.
3: Every racial categorization has its place in a hierarchy determined by the government or by general consensus. The racial classification higher in the hierarchy will prevail among the two or more conflicting racial categorizations.
4: Whoever pays more money to the other person/people will be able to use the racial categorization of his/her/their own choice.
5: Use a racia franca... however, unlike scenario 2, in scenario 5 (this one) the racia franca is time-specific. For example there might be a summer racia franca, winter racia franca, full moon racia franca (which prevails over the season-dependant racia francas) etc.
6: Syncretism: create a racial categorization that is a consensus mix between the two or more racial categorizations that are being proposed by various people or groups.
7: Play dice, poker, rock-paper-scissors, or some other game like that to determine which racial categorization will be used.

Why individual racist mentality might arise:

1: They got brainwashed by what 'society' says
2: They got brainwashed by what 'state propaganda' (or 'mainstream media', in cases where the state itself does not have direct control of the media).
3: They have had bad experiences with people of a certain 'race' (however that is defined) and they generalized.
4: They have heard about bad experiences about a certain 'race' while watching state propaganda/mainstream media and generalized.
5: The belief is not about behavior or qualities about certain 'races', but society/state propaganda/mainstream media brainwashes people to believe in some kind of inherent 'superiority' or 'inferiority' of certain 'races', either:
5.1: cultural superiority
5.2: biological superiority
5.3: both cultural and biological superiority
6: They might not believe that any 'race' is 'superior' or 'inferior', just 'different', and they might think separatism would be the wisest choice for everyone. Either state propaganda, mainstream media, brainwashing by 'society', or it could also be a conclusion reached independently (especially in a society where being racist is frowned upon), or reached by watching some fringe media.
7: They are not racist personally, but they have to pretend to be racists because of the fear of jail or capital punishment by the government if they are caught being non-racists.

12.33: Secrecy

Question: what is best to be said (public), and what is best to be unsaid (secret, occult, hidden, private)?

1: All things are best said.
2: Most things are best said, some things are best left unsaid.
3: It's not really a matter of proportion but you should consider what is good to be said or left unsaid based on certain criteria.
4: Most things are best left unsaid, some things are best said.
5: All things are best left unsaid.

Thing X, values:

1: Best left said
2: Best left unsaid
3: Indifferent
4: Better said, but unsaid is also acceptable
5: Better unsaid, but said is also acceptable
6: Better unsaid, said is unacceptable
7: Better said, unsaid is unacceptable

Said/unsaid to whom may also be an important criterion, and the degree of trust you have in that person to not spread that information around. Also, better for whom? For oneself, or for others? There may be some ethics needed to take into consideration.

1: Said publicly (to everyone). NOTE: anything that you upload on the Internet is PUBLIC information. Some people seem to forget that, haha!
2: Said to some people but not others.
3: Said to nobody (only you know about that information, at least, that you're aware of).

Being an over-sharer vs being extremely reserved is a spectrum with many values in-between. Distinction is made of whether one is over-sharer/reserved when it comes to things relating to oneself or when it comes to things related to others.

1: Over-sharer of things related to oneself AND things related to others (basically, someone you should't tell your own secrets to)
2: Over-sharer of things related to oneself but not things related to others
3: Reserved of things related to oneself but over-sharer of things related to others (again, someone you should't tell your own secrets to)
4: Reserved of things related to oneself AND things related to others

There are other options in-between, not just over-sharer and reserved, but the main pattern is "spectrum of oversharer/reserved when it comes to things regarding oneself" + "spectrum of oversharer/reserved when it comes to things regarding others". We have now seen the possible 'values', but let's now see the reasons behind one would attribute such a value to a certain information.

Possible reason to keep something private or to share it: consequentialism. If keeping something private or sharing it brings positive consequences, then you do it. Positive consequences for whom?:

1: For yourself
2: For some other individual.
2.1: *any* individual (you don't care who that is).
2.2: an individual that you "love" (not necessarily in a romantic way... just in the sense of "that you care about")
3: For society at large.
3.1: Even if that means you sacrifice your own happiness or go through some kind of inconvenience.
3.2: But not if that means you have to sacrifice your own happiness etc.
4: Not necessarily for "society at large", but for the advancement of a particular principle, ideal or goal (who (i.e. what human being) benefits exactly may vary, but what (i.e. what abstract concept) benefits from that is a particular principle, ideal or goal... which in some occult interpretations may be elevated to egregore status).

Another factor in this case may be the probability (which may be Bayesian, or some other) that keeping something private or sharing it brings negative consequences. Depending on how risk-averse or risk-taking one is, the threshold may vary. Yet another thing to consider is that one does not necessarily choose "the best" option. For instance, if one choice brings neutral consequences and the other choice brings positive consequences, one may choose the former, despite it not bringing as good of consequences as the latter. One may even actively take the sub-optimal (but still decent) choice, as one may believe that "perfection is the enemy of good" or that there are benefits in choosing an option that is decent but not the best among all options.

12.34: Solitude vs socialization

Coming soon...

12.35: Democracy

Coming soon, but for now...

Is democracy good?

1: Yes.
2: No.
3: More nuanced/mixed opinion.
4: Democracy itself is good, it's just the way it's implemented in the world that is flawed. Proposed alternatives:
4.x: sub-options coming soon.

Does democracy actually exist anywhere in the world (Kora + Gaia)?

1: Yes. Where?
1.x: Sub-options coming soon.
2: No.
3: Something vaguely similar to democracy exists but not exactly.

12.36: Ontological vs qualitative atheism

Ontological atheism is when one says that (what are generally considered) "gods" do not exist, whereas qualitative atheism is when one says that (what are generally considered) "gods" exist but are not gods. So a qualitative atheist can say that for example Yahweh, Allah, Satan, Prometheus, Lucifer, Aphrodite, Queltzalcoatl etc. exist but are not gods. (Some) Christians and Muslims may be considered qualitative atheists when they say that Satan exists (in addition to Yahweh/Allah) but claim to be monotheists rather than duotheists. In some interpretations, since the Sun, Earth and Moon may be considered gods, an atheist who believes that the Sun, Earth and Moon all exist may be considered a qualitative atheist.

Another distinction is between global and local atheism. Global atheism is atheism towards all deities, whereas local atheism is atheism towards a particular deity. This compounds into four categories:

Global ontological atheism: "no deity exists" i.e. "none of what is (regarded as) a deity exists"
Global qualitative atheism: "no deity exists" i.e. "none of what is (regarded as) a deity is a deity (though it may exist)"
Local ontological atheism: "this specific deity does not exist"
Local qualitative atheism: "this specific entity that is regarded as a deity is actually not a deity (though it may exist)"

Global atheism needs no qualifier, whereas local atheism does, e.g. "local atheism relative to Satan". The two are not mutually exclusive, since a global atheist is necessarily a local atheist relative to all gods.

12.39: Transracialism, transageism, etc.

Arguments for transgenderism almost perfectly coincide with those that can be used for transracialism, transageism and other trans identities. Not exactly identical but there are interesting parallels. Work in progress, coming soon...

First draft. Potential distinction between "race" and "culture", as analogues of "sex" and "gender" for transgender worldview. Race is more, "biological" (for a lack of a better term), and "culture" is more psychological, self-identifying. For transageism: potential distinction between "chronological age" vs "self-identified age" (awful provisory term, I'll have to find something better lol). For age-related identities, one can make a distinction between "precise" vs "non-precise". Non-precise: baby, toddler, child, young adult, middle aged, senior etc. precise: 20 year old etc. "Teenager" can be ambiguous in English since when taken literally, it describes people from 13 through 19 (-teen numbers), but "adolescent" can be used as a synonym and it would be classified as "non-precise". Work in progress for philosophical implications of transracial and transageist identities. Precise vs non-precise self-identifications may mix with each-other: a chronologically 50 year old may identify as a 30 year old adolescent, for example. What that means is work in progress, but prima facie it seems to me that non-precise age may have parallels with transgender genders in terms of focusing on aesthetics and/or behaviors, e.g. in transageist worldviews, "adolescent", when understood as a self-identifier, may focus on having an adolescent aesthetics, interests and/or behaviors.

Tentative description of transracialism: in certain countries, including (but not limited to) USA, Canada, UK etc. people are assigned a "race" at birth (without the consent of the newborn baby), depending on traits such as physical characteristics and ancestry. Potential example (to analyze eventually): someone (let's call him Dave, to avoid confusion as to whom the pronouns refer to) born in the UK who has been assigned the "race" "black" at birth, has been adopted by Chinese immigrants (who also live in the UK), and always lived in the UK, and of course speaks with a British accent, but can also speak Chinese and, within his adoptive family, adopts some Chinese cultural practices. On top of all that, Dave is a retro gamer and very strongly identifies with the retro gaming culture: his identification with the retro gaming culture, for him, is far stronger than any other characteristics he's been assigned by the government or society. It'd be interesting to analyze the identity of Dave according to transracial worldviews. According to some transracial view (which I may formulate eventually), "retro gamer", "emo", "metalhead", "otaku" etc. are also "races" (or "cultures" in other transracial views... the terminology may vary depending on the view). There will be a whole lot of different worldviews, as usual (this is the point of the philosophy section of this website, after all, lmao)!

Transracialist "races":

Category 1: "races" based on ancestry: two sub-categories, orthodox and unorthodox. Orthodox races are those generally recognized, e.g. in the context of the USA, those are usually just "white", "black", "asian" and "native american". The unorthodox races are those that are not generally recognized, but they must refer to existing people e.g. it does not include blue-skinned people that can fire lasers from their eyes, as those people do not exist outside of fiction. Unorthodox races may be, for example, "blight" people ("white" and/or "black" people, or a mix), Americoceanians (native americans and/or australian aborigines, or a mix of the two), "Afro-Eurasians" (people from Africa, Europe or Asia, or a mix... it excludes native americans or australian aborigens), "West-Afro-Eurasians", that is, people from Western Europe, Western Africa or West Asia, or a mix... it excludes people from Eastern Europe, Eastern Africa or Eastern Asia e.g. someone who has a Norwegian father and Senegalese mother, or someone who has both Norwegian parents, or both Senegalese parents etc. is considered a West-Afro-Eurasian, whereas someone who has a Norwegian father and Kenyan mother is considered "mixed race", therefore not a West-Afro-Eurasia (as Kenya is in Eastern Africa)... someone who has a Polish father and Senegalese mother is also mixed, and someone who has a Polish father and Kenyan mother is NOT West-Afro-Eurasian, but East-Afro-Eurasian. Well, you get the point, any "unorthodox" categorization that is however possible to use and refers to real people is what I call "unorthodox race". You can get very creative with these, e.g. Southern-Chloe (yeah, I gave it a random name): those who are from Southern Germany (EXCEPT Bavaria) and/or Northern India, or a mix of both. The point is, "race" is a social construct and potentially it can be defined as anything and can and does change with time e.g. Irish and Italian people were not considered "white" in the early USA (most likely because Irish and Italian people were majority Catholic rather than Protestant), but became (categorized as) "white" with time. Many eastern Asians have white skin, and the reason why they were not (and still are not) categorized as "white" in the USA is simply because of racism, and nothing more. With "unorthodox race" you can conceptualize "race" as anything you want, and of course, this also applies to self-identification. For instance, someone from New Delhi may want to identify as "Southern Chloe" , which includes Southern Germans (EXCEPT Bavarians!) and Northern Indians. With transracialism, that can be done. Btw, Afro-Eurasia is an actual continent, as there are no natural masses of water that separate the landmass (the Suez canal is artificial, and does not count geologically!)

Category 2: "races" NOT based on ancestry. In some transracial ideologies, this is called "culture" instead. Example of category 2 races/cultures:

• Emo
• Otaku
• Metalhead
• Gamer
• NEET
• Nerd
• Hacker
• Weeb
• Goth (not to be confused with Medieval Germanic people, as that would be a category 1 race)
• Scene
• Punk
• Grunge
• Gangster
• Mafioso
• Billionaire(? I'm not sure... I'll have to explore the implications of this one)

Note: as "cultures/races" (related to category 1 "races") usually have associated countries (e.g. Japan -> Japanese culture etc.), these "cultures/races" of Category 2 may also be thought of having associated countries. It's what I call "pseudo-countries", that is, fictional, idealized countries dominated by a specific culture e.g. Emo -> Emoland(?).

Types of transracialism:

• Orthodox (assigned at birth) to unorthodox transracialism: e.g. Asian (I think that's what Indians are called in the USA? I suppose so) or "white" to Southern-Chloe
• Orthodox (assigned at birth) to unorthodox to category 2: e.g. "mixed race" (think someone who has a Norwegian father and Senegalese mother) to "West-Afroeurasian" to "emo".
• Orthodox (assigned at birth) to category 2: same as above but without the intermediary step.
• Orthodox (assigned at birth) to historical: e.g. "white" to "viking", or "white" to "roman" etc. this may be difficult to prove in terms of ancestry but some (but not all) versions of transracialism may allow you to self-identify as "viking" or "roman" or "samurai" or whatever purely based on aesthetics, regardless of ancestry.
• There may be others but I don't have anything else in mind right now... it may or may not be coming soon. Oh wait I have another idea!
• Orthodox (assigned at birth) to orthodox (not assigned at birth). This is more complex and may be logically different from the ones above... Basically, an example may be "white" to "black", or "black" to "white" etc. but this one seems different, and here some Pangean philosophers sometimes introduce the distinction between "race" and "culture". This one is different from the ones above because the ones above changed their categorization type, here it remains the same, categorically-speaking, but it transitions to a different "race" of the same category.

Possible concept that I may explore in the future: physical vs metaphysical ancestry. Physical ancestry is where your physical ancestors were from, and that determines your physical appearance, whereas metaphysical ancestry is where (within the realm of ideas or even the physical world) your metaphysical ancestors were from, and that determines your behavior, personality, interests, opinions, religion etc. E.g. if you're emo, that most likely means that your metaphysical ancestors were from Emoland, and so on. When it comes to orthodox to orthodox transracialism (e.g. "white" to "black", or viceversa, etc.), that means your physical ancestors determine your physical look, and your metaphysical ancestors determine the "race" you identify as. Since metaphysical ancestors can originate from a physical land (e.g. Europe, Subsaharan Africa etc.) or a metaphysical land (e.g. Emoland, Otakuland etc.), your metaphysical "race" may be a race of category 1 or 2.

Distinction between "race" and "culture": "race" is more "biological", determined based on ancestry and physical appearance, whereas "culture" is more psychological, based on self-identification. Cultures can have two main origins: physical and metaphysical. Physical culures originate from a physical land: e.g. Japanese culture originates from Japan (a physical land), whereas metaphysical cultures originate from metaphysical lands, e.g. retro gaming culture originates from Retrogamingland (a metaphysical land). If you're a retro gamer, that means your metaphysical ancestors came from Retrogamingland. In some interpretations, if you for example got assigned "white" at birth and you identify as "black", that means your metaphysical ancestors came from Subsaharan Africa. That means (at least in some interpretations) that metaphysical beings are around us, and coexist with physical humans. These metaphysical beings may be gods, spirits, ghosts, and other entities that lack a physical body. Furthermore, if a physical human being had metaphysical ancestors, that means that the characteristics of reproduction between humans and these incorporeal entities are... something I'd need to research. It's possible that you can have sex with spirits or even with abstract concepts (surely it's possible according to some ideologies that I'll make up... everything that can be thought must be thought, after all!). Of course, not all interpretations of transracialism affirm the existence of these incorporeal entities. Some forms of transracialism are neutral towards these entities, whereas other forms of transracialism outright deny the existence of such incorporeal beings and interpret orthodox to orthodox transracialism in a different manner, perhaps a more psychological one (e.g. "race dysphoria") rather than metaphysical/supernatural.

12.40: Mandela Effect

Psychological explanations (e.g. memories are fallible), metaphysical explanations (e.g. the Universe as we knew ended on December 21 2012 due to the Higgs Boson and it has been replaced by a simulation by CERN), and possibly others (even unorthodox/bizarre).

1: Psychological explanation: memories are fallible. There may be several reasons why a large number of people has false memories. In this explanation, the memories are false, they refer to events that didn't actually happen.
2: Idealistic/semi-solipsistic explanation: "reality" is not as stable as one may think, and consciousness may alter reality. The memories in this explanation are not strictly "false", but an alternate reality that used to be real but got "removed" from "canon reality" (though not from many people's memories) and became non-canon (though it used to be canon when it first happened). Here it's a matter not of false memories, but of transition from canon to non-canon.
3: Cosmic apocalypse explanation: the Universe as we knew it ended on a certain date (most popularly in culture, on December 21 2012) due to a certain event (e.g. the Higgs Boson), and after that date:
3.1: The Universe has been replaced with some sort of non-physical simulation (possibly by CERN).
3.2: Nothing exists anymore, everything has been annihilated. However, since nothingness is a logical and philosophical aberration and cannot exist by definition, random qualia appear to be generated (though not even those exist, it's just an illusion) in order to fill "the void", even though the truth is simply that nothing exists anymore, as all matter and energy and everything else has been annihilated, leading to the end of the Universe.
3.3: "Nothing" cannot exist. It cannot contain space nor time, since space and time are something. That means, the Universe cannot start nor end, as it implies a "before" or "after". But, "before" or "after" implies something, namely, time. However, even with this constraint, the Universe can have an initial and final moment. The initial moment of the Universe was 13.8 billion years ago, and the final moment was (and still is) December 21, 2012. At the exact final moment of the Universe (whose "end" was caused by the Higgs Boson), everything collapsed into a singularity, where everything happens simultaneously, including alternative pasts, hypotheticals, wishes etc. all possible qualia (including memories) were generated simultaneously, even though those qualia have no physical body attached to them. The illusion of sensorial experience after December 21, 2012 is just happening at the exact same moment. What is perceived as "2026" is actually a specific instant in December 21, 2012. The reason why Mandela effect exists is because the qualia of "mismatched memories" are possible qualias, and are generated just like every other quale. This is the final instant of the Universe. There's no "after", because "nothingness" cannot exist.
Other explanations may be coming soon, if I have them in mind.

13: Expressions and conversations

Simple, tone-neutral assertions are mostly similar to just listing ideas, so I'll skip that. Since conversations can be pretty much anything, it'd be impossible to list them all (like anything else in this page, tbh, lol), so I'll just list some "templates" and some examples. These can happen in fictional media and even in real life (with some limitations on the latter, due to laws). Also, unlike in the "philosophy" section of this website, I'm also planning to include not only different views but also different tones in which those views may be said, as that may be interesting and can teach more about communication. I may expand this section to include different tones, too. I'll probably include some those types of phrases in ridge shadowed borders and use fake usernames to simulate social media posts, as that'd be more immersive and fun. This section is about "expressions" (how those views can be expressed, with different tones, vocabulary, implications etc.), and "conversations". Note that social media comments/replies in Pangea are decentralized, the replies and comment exist but there isn't a centralized comment section that you can look at and get a gist of the "consensus" (through proportion, as one would do in Gaia). There is pretty much no consensus about anything in Pangea. The only semblance of objective truth is the official truth, and it only gives information about verified, empirical facts, and one is free to ignore that as well, but it's always available in case one needs it. In the "expression" section, I'll try to include as many logical fallacies and biases as possible, for completeness.

Expressions of ideas

1: "Only idiots believe that [insert module opposite of one's one view]". E.g. "only idiots believe that gods exist".
1.1: "only intelligent people believe that [insert module of one's view]". E.g. "only intelligent people believe that gods exist regardless of humans' opinions".
1.2: "the only intelligent thing to believe is [insert module of one's view]".
2: "I've just found out that [insert module], I'm so smart!"
3: "People who believe that [insert module] are dangerous!"
4: "I hate people who believe [insert module]"
5: (Whether or not this is true) "There is inconfutable evidence that [insert module] is true!"
6: "People who believe that [insert module] have not yet reached enlightenment"
More coming soon! And yeah, I think it'd be better to have a separate section for these.

Expressions of emotions:

List of emotions:

1: Happiness
2: Sadness
3: Anger
4: Disgust
5: Relaxation
6: Fear
7: Boredom
8: Entertainment
9: Sympathy
10: Satisfaction
11: Disappointment
12: Hate
13: Love
14: Schadenfreude
More coming soon!

15: Organized Criminality (The "Toros", the Pangean Mafia)

The Toros are the largest and main organized criminal group in Pangea. Their activity is to offer illegal services. Pangean murder rate, and overall crime rate, is extremely low, the murder rate is about 0.1 murders per 100,000 people per year, which means there are about 800 murders per year in Pangea. About 10% of total murders is done by the Toros, so the Toros kills about 80 people a year. Which is almost nothing considered Pangea has 800 million inhabitants, but it's still non-zero. The Pangean government does its best to suppress the Toros, but it fails to completely prevent their activities. The Toros are a hierarchical organization: almost always, activities are sold to paying customers by the lowest people in the hierarchy: the Rookies. The vast majority of the Rookies end up getting arrested sooner or later. The Toros request the Rookies to sell illegal services to paying customers as a "loyalty test". Higher up in the hierarchy there are people who manage the Rookies, but even those receive order from higher ups. Inside the organization, members only know a few other members. At the highest level of the organization there's the Leader, but nobody (including the Pangean government) knows who he or she is. Their identity is completely unknown. The vast majority of Rookies get arrested sooner or later, but the customers who pay for the services from the Toros also get arrested, since it's illegal to buy services from the Toros. However, accessing the services of the Toros or even knowing where to find them is extremely difficult, so the actual event of someone buying services from the Toros is very rare. Even if you do want to buy services from the Toros, finding them is definitely no easy feat. Plus, there's a very high chance of undercover cops. Here are some of the illegal activities that the Toros offer, why they're illegal according to Pangean law, and what's the legal alternative to the service (note that it's very rare in Pangea to be victim of the Toros... but the probability is still non-zero... the reason why it's very rare to be victim of the Toros is not because the Toros have self-control, but because the Pangean government actively suppresses them):

1: Violent non-consensual shows. The Toros kidnap random people (including children) and force them to participate in violent shows. Some people pay to see these shows. Such shows may include kidnapped people being eaten by lions, or fighting to the death with swords. Occasionally, these people may survive, especially in the shows where they are given swords to fight back. However, they won't always be able to escape. These shows are performed in hidden and secret spots. In some cases, the paying customer can participate in the show: a paying customer can lash a non-consenting individual, causing damage. Why it's illegal: strong causal contamination. Kidnapping people in their free time and forcing them to do things against their well is a form of strong causal contamination, and it's illegal. Legal alternative: fake shows with actors who pretend to get hurt. Those shows are very realistic, so it would be illegal to offer the real version. There are legal entertainment activities in Pangea where you can pay to "lash" a person, but it's fake: the person wears a clothing that looks like human skin, underneath that there's a metallic shield that prevents that person from getting hurt, and between the metallic shield and the fake human skin there's a red liquid (which represents blood) that comes out if you hit the fake human skin with the lash. Nobody actually gets hurt. However, the Toros provide the real version of that.
2: Child sexual abuse. The Toros kidnaps random children, trafficks them and sells them to pedophiles who pay for such "service". Why it's illegal: strong causal contamination, but even if it wasn't... there's still the fact that even during their free time, children are not allowed to consent to sex in Pangea. Legal alternatives: lolicon (anime-like pictures/animations) is legal in Pangea, and there are also some sex workers that are around 18-25 year old but who look much younger. In Pangea it's legal for an adult sex worker to "roleplay" as a minor, even as a child, as long as the actual age of the sex worker is 18 or above! So those two are the closest thing to the "real thing" that is legal in Pangea.
3: "Survive". The Toros sometimes (rarely, but again, just because the police suppresses them aggressively, otherwise they'd do it more often) offer service called "survive". Basically, you pay to... well, survive. If you don't pay, the Toros will kill you or a family member (usually a child). If you pay they'll leave you alone, at least for some time. Why it's illegal: strong causal contamination (more specifically: non-consensually killing someone). Legal alternative: literally "paying taxes"! Both in Pangea and in Gaia, the government and the mafia have two things in common: they periodically request money from you, and you're not allowed to refuse paying. However, since governments (both in Pangea and in Gaia) have the monopoly of legal violence, when a government does it it's called "taxes" and when the mafia does it it's called "extortion". Pangea is no different in that regard.
4: (Media) piracy. One of the very few non-violent crimes the Toros commit. They sell pirated media at much lower price than the official price. Note that in Pangea, piracy is illegal. Modular copyright is not the same thing as piracy! Modular copyright is simply something that allows derivative works, but the value of each module used in the derivative work goes directly to the one(s) who created those modules. Piracy, on the other hand, leaves the original creators with no money from the sales of the pirated content! So, yeah, among the other things, Toros offer pirated media at much lower prices than the official price. Legal alternative: buy the media officially.
5: Selling drugs to Gaian countries. All drugs are legal in Pangea. However, the Pangean government does not sell them to other countries, since Gaian countries have criminalized drugs. The Pangean government may sell cannabis where it's legal, though. The Toros, on the other hand, buy drugs from the Pangean government and sell it to Gaian countries. The Pangean government actively tries to stop this illegal trade, but the Toros cannot fully be stopped. This is one of the most profitable activities for the Toros. Legal alternative: none. Most drugs are illegal in Gaian countries, there's no "legal alternative" to this service.
6: Hitmen: the Toros offer contract killings to paying customers. However, this is extremely expensive, and extremely risky. In the vast majority of cases, both the hitman and the one who paid for the killing get arrested. Legal alternative: it's technically legal to kill someone consensually in Pangea, even if you're not a euthanasia worker. It's considered a consensual interaction between two matchers.
7: Non-consensual medical experiments. In Pangea, there have been scandals regarding pharmaceutical companies: some of their researchers have made deals with the Toros: the latter had kidnapped some people and sold them to the pharmaceutical companies in order to test their drugs. All of those involved (except the victims, of course) had been arrested. However, it may occasionally still go on behind closed doors. Legal alternative: one may consensually offer oneself (even in exchange of a large amount of money) to be the subject of medical experiments.
8: Human meat of a person who was killed non-consensually (by the Toros, of course). An illegal service for cannibals. Though, considering how difficult it is to find the Toros, a cannibal has likely better luck finding a Matcher who consensually wants to get eaten (which would be the legal alternative).

16: Custompedia

Custompedia is a website on the Pangean Internet, at the URL https://www.custompedia.pangea/ and it acts like an online encyclopedia. The main difference is its structure and how the articles are written. The most visited (though not only) encyclopedia-like website in Gaia is Wikipedia. One of the most noticeable things regarding Wikipedia is its bias on certain articles. For instance, in Gaia, there are certain topics where a "political" (so to speak... in many cases it has nothing to do with politics but are merely opinions that are adhered to for identitarian purposes) "left/right" divide exists. Such topics are arbitrary and include, among others, opinions regarding homosexuality, whether vaccinations should be mandatory/forbidden/optional, opinions on geopolitical events (of which it's often the case that the person opining on such events knows next to nothing about them), whether or not abortion should be allowed, and other topics. One opinion about such topic is classified as "left-wing" and the other is classified as "right-wing", often arbitrarily and without any underlying principle or logic. Some other topics, such as the opinion on open source software, or what is the best urban geometry to build a city, do not seem (as far as I'm aware of) to have such "left/right" divide in Gaia, and therefore, media/commentators that self-identify as "left-right" or "right-wing" either do not comment on those topics (of which the possible opinions are not (yet) labelled as "left" or "right") at all (which seems to be the most common scenario), or when they do talk about those topics, then they freely allow themselves to any opinion they want about it. That is, unless at some point said opinion is labelled as "left" or "right", in which case there is then a tendency for people to discard or adhere to that opinion depending on the self-identifying label and how the opinion is labelled e.g. if someone identifies as "left-wing", then if an opinion is labelled as "left-wing", they'll adhere to that opinion, whereas if that opinion is labelled as "right-wing", they'll discard that opinion, and the same reasoning applies to if someone identifies as "right-wing", of course. Of course, not everyone is like that, there are also people who think freely, there are many exceptions to this pattern (though those seem to be at least somewhat less popular), but Wikipedia is not one. In the articles regarding the topics where a "left/right divide" exists in Gaia, Wikipedia noticeably takes a "left" stance. The bias is so noticeable that such articles often seem to be intended to induce the reader to have a specific opinion on the topic, rather than being informative. Other than articles regarding the "left/right" topics, Wikipedia also has a very noticeable bias against any form of alternative medicine, going far beyond than merely stating neutral studies that disprove it. Wikipedia also has other forms of biases, but I don't remember which at this moment. So, the question is, how does Custompedia handle bias?

Let's consider the topic of "bacon", for example. What information should be included, in which proportion, and in which order? It's true that bacon is considered haram in Islam, and otherwise forbidden in Christianity and Judaism as well. It's also true that it's not very healthy for people who have excessively high cholesterol. It's also true that people who are vegetarian or vegan for moral reasons refuse to eat bacon because pigs are often kept in farms in horrible conditions and brutally killed merely for humans' taste preferences. But it's also true that bacon has a history in many countries where it's socially considered acceptable to eat it, there are restaurants that sell it, there are hamburgers with bacon in it, there is history, economy, nutritional properties, bacon appearances in media etc. to be explained. So, what should an encyclopedia article about bacon look like? What should be the proportion of neutral, positive and negative facts about it? In what order? Neutral first, then negative, then positive? Neutral first, then positive, then negative? It becomes clear that the format of Wikipedia does not conduce to neutrality, because if you have articles about any topic, then any way the information is presented carries some bias. People who dislike X may read an article with a negative bias about X and they'll all feel tingly inside and be like "YESH!!! This is how it is!!! Haha!!!" and feel totally euphoric, whereas if the article has a neutral or positive bias about X they may think the website "defends" X (implying that it should talk negatively about X). Conversely, someone who has a positive opinion about X and the article has a negative bias about X, they may call the website "a bunch of haters", call the article "slander" and so on. How does Custompedia handle this basic human psychology fact? Remember the logic of Pangea: in your free time, you see what you want to see. That means, Custompedia is customizable. You can select its biases and information that you want to prioritize. Custompedia articles have a different structure from Wikipedia articles: Custompedia articles are modular, that is, each article is a collection of several components. For instance, the Custompedia article about bacon is not just one monolithic string of text, but it contains all the information available on bacon, all of it! Then, you can customize how Custompedia articles look like. For instance, if you're a Muslim, you can specify that, and then all the information that is relevant e.g. "bacon is haram", as well as where exactly in the Quran it says that, e.g. Quran 5:3 "Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, and swine; what is slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah; what is killed by strangling, beating, a fall, or by being gored to death; what is partly eaten by a predator unless you slaughter it; and what is sacrificed on altars. [...]". Such modules will be dynamically placed on top if you select the tag "Islam" in the settings, as those modules are the most relevant. Let's say you have excessively high cholesterol and you want to know if a food is to be avoided, there are tags for any health condition, and then if you look at a Custompedia article about a food, the modules that contain information about health will be placed on top, so you can see them quickly. Let's say that you're a Satanist (adversarial to Allah in this case) and you want to perform as many haram actions as possible. You also want to know if something is haram, even though with the opposite intent as that of a Muslim. You can also select various forms of Satanism or Iblis following so that the information available will be placed on top. Basically, you can select any ideology, and when you read an article you can immediately see all the relevant information. You can select any health condition, any bias, any aesthetic or musical preference etc. Here are some other examples: let's say that you like deathcore music but hate post-rock, pop rock, alternative metal and the like. You can specify that in the settings (there are tags for every music genre, aesthetic preference, anything, really) and then if you look at the page of Bring Me The Horizon, when you look at their discography it will clearly state that their first album "Count Your Blessings" is Deathcore and their latest albums are genres that you dislike (it won't say "genres that you dislike", it will just list the genres alongside the albums, but you already know which ones you dislike). The genres you like and the genres you dislike will be marked by a different color (e.g. blue for those you like and red for those you dislike, but even that is fully customizable!) to help you know what you'd want to listen to. On the other hand, if you dislike explicit language, you can select that in the settings and when you go to a musician's Custompedia page, it will list which albums or even which songs have explicit language and which don't. If you go to the page "list of music albums released in 2012", you can select to have the symphonic metal albums on top, clearly marked as symphonic metal, if that's what you want. This is possible because unlike on Wikipedia, Custompedia articles are not a monolithic string of text, but a collection of modules. All modules contain metadata, tags and the like, which help dynamically position, mark or even remove modules from the article, depending on the tags and settings you have selected. For instance, sections about criticism towards X contain explicitly metadata/tags such as "criticism;criticism about [X];position aligned with [insert ideologies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.]" etc. so that when you modify the settings, what the article says will be different. If you don't want to see criticism towards X, you can select that in the settings. If all the information you want to se about X must be negative, you can select that too. If you want to see all of it, you can select it too. All the information is truthful and correct, but different people may want to see different things, in different orders and in different proportions (including "none at all"). It will not be misleading, as you'll see exactly what you have selected in the settings. What if you select nothing in the settings? Then you see all the information available regarding that topic, in no particular order, with no particular proportion and without anything be explicitly marked. You'll literally see all modules of that topic in no particular order. So, Custompedia gives people accurate and truthful information, but customized according to the user's preferred biases. Custompedia does not believe in "one size fits all": a Muslim, a person with very high cholesterol, a vegan, a follower of Iblis and someone who enjoys eating meat will have different needs and preferences when they look an article about bacon: having one page that is the same for all would not be very helpful. Another example is, let's say someone intends to boycott Israel (or anything else, for that matter). They can specify that in the settings and then when they look the article about a brand or company, it explains if such brand/company is in the boycott list. Let's also say that someone believes people's opinions about something are completely irrelevant, they can specify that in the settings and then the article will only have objective, measurable facts, completely devoid of any opinion, negative or positive. Or let's say that someone wants Custompedia to specify everyone's age. They can select that in the settings and then, right after someone's name, there will be their age in the brackets, either current or at the time of the event described (depending on what you have selected). The page simply outputs brackets and fetches information about the date of birth and the date of the event it describes and automatically outputs the age in the brackets. Also, one may correctly point out that certain terms are used as insults by an out-group and with neutral or positive connotation by an in-group. For instance, "Nazi", "communist", "woke", "Satanic", "pagan" etc. Custompedia recognizes that, and in fact it differentiates between "[label_(in-group)]" and "[label_(out-group)]". Custompedia knows very well that negativity bias and out-group homogeneity causes labels to be applied more broadly to out-groups than to in-groups, so that's why it offers that solution. Furthermore, the tags also specify which ideologies label which ones with which labels, as the metadata also has its own metadata, making customization options really rich and precise, if the user requests that. In lists of philosophers or people, for example, the user can request to hide people who had a certain worldview, or hide people who did not have kids, or hide people with a certain ethnicity etc. or even prioritize them rather than hiding them, or neither prioritize them nor hide them but mark them with a different color so the user knows which is which... the user can customize anything, really. Literally anything. You can also specify in the settings if you want images, or if you want a page that lacks images, if you only want photos, if you only want cartoonish drawings and if so in which style (in Pangea, there is art depicting pretty much anything in pretty much any style, so availability is not a problem) etc. the possibilities of customization of the articles in Custompedia are endless! Obviously, just like any website in Pangea, you can customize Custompedia's CSS and insert any theme you want in it!

17: Custom Search

Coming soon...

18: CustomOS

CustomOS is the main (but not only) operating system in Pangea, both for desktop (CustomOS Desktop) and mobile (CustomOS Mobile). It is a "paid and open source software" (POSS) where you can pay to get the source code (or to download the ISO, not even that is free), you can edit and redistribute the source code, but you have to redistribute the source code at a minimum price of all the components you use. You can keep the additional money of the components you added, and that is the value of those components. Someone else can then redistribute a version of CustomOS with the components you added, and all the money of the value of those components goes to you. It's a system of modular copyright, where the price of the end product is equal of the sum of all components ("modules") within it. CustomOS is extremely customizable even without editing the source code, as there are extensive settings one can use. You can modify everything about the OS: themes, menus of everything (e.g. if you think the distinction having an option to delete a file and an option to move the file to the bin is redundant, you can for example remove the "move to bin" option and just keep the "delete file" option), you can set a different titlebar window theme for every different app, you can set a sentence like "Yo, ya' really sure ya' wanna delete this?" as the file deletion prompt, with the option "Hell yeah!" and "Naaahhh!!!" under it, and you can customize the sounds of everything, so if you click "Hell yeah!" there's the sound of brief heavy metal guitar riff. If you go to the tech store you can buy computers with themes already preinstalled e.g. a CustomOS laptop with an emo theme or "high school girl" theme. If the tech store doesn't have it (because it's not like they have hundreds of thousands of PC's in a single store), you can request it, and then they'll tell you "Sure, come back in a week", then you come back a week later and there will be exactly the computer you asked for, with the exact characteristics you asked for. In CustomOS, you can swap anything: desktop environments, file managers, window managers, and even the dropdown menu of when you right click on the desktop. Literally anything is customizable and swappable, including the kernel (of which there may be different versions). This leads to a paradox similar to that of the ship of Theseus: if you swap every component of CustomOS, is it still CustomOS? What defines CustomOS? The answer is, intercompatibility. An operating system is considered a version of CustomOS if and only if it's compatible with CustomOS components. That is, CustomOS is not defined by the components it has, but by the components it can have. Intercompatibility is not at all a problem in CustomOS, because even in the case a version of CustomOS is not natively compatible with some components of CustomOS, compatibility layers (similar to emulators in some senses) can be installed and then, the OS will become compatible with the components. The native application format of CustomOS has the ".cda" (Custom Desktop Application) extension, but CustomOS is entirely compatible with ".exe" (Windows) applications due to a compatibility layer that permits .exe files to run flawlessly on CustomOS. It is constantly updated by a large team of developers and is either already pre-installed on CustomOS computers or can easily be installed anyway (though it costs money, but if you buy a computer with it preinstalled, you won't notice it because the price is included in the computer). Additionally, CustomOS is compatible with pretty much every driver, both Pangean and Gaian. Computers with CustomOS never become obsolete, there are always software updates, even for 32-bit computers, and even for computers released in 1995. There is no obsolescence when it comes to Pangean tech, so if you bought a computer in 1995 with 8 MB of RAM, you'll still receive software updates, and they will not slow down your operating system, because those software updates are done specifically for a device with 8 MB of RAM. Depending on the specifications of the device, what is included exactly in the software updates will vary, but the important security updates will always be there! If you have a computer from 1995, you'll receive software updates regularly, and you can even browse the modern Pangean Internet, because websites are built in such a way that they are compatible with every possible device, even though, with an 8 MB RAM computer, you'll pretty much be limited to text-only browsing, as loading even a single low-resolution image on a website will slow down your computer. At most, you have the option to load a 144p resolution image (compression is done server-side, obviously!), one image per time (as loading multiple images at once, even if low resolution, will almost surely crash your computer). But still, even if it's text-only or "one-image", modern browsing (of Pangean websites) does work! You can even go to https://www.videos.pangea/, search for a video in the search bar, titles will be returned, and then you can click on the title of the video. You'll see the title, text description, and if you activated it, even the views, subscribers, likes, dislikes, and even the comments (which comments, you choose that, as in the Pangean Internet, there's no single, centralized comment section), but the video doesn't load at all (if it did, even at 144p resolution, it would almost certainly crash your computer, so the browser requests the website to not load the video at all). Instead, there's just text that says "download video", with various resolution options (144p to 240p are the recommended ones). You download the video and you watch it. Of course, don't expect being able to do multitasking with multible browser tabs opened. But one tab, text only browsing is fully doable with a 1995 computer with CustomOS and the Pangean Internet. Pangean tech never becomes obsolete in the sense of lack of support, it can only become obsolete in terms of possible functionality, that is, purely because of the hardware limitations, and never for other reasons. If the hardware can technically do something, it will be supported for that functionality. If it cannot do it, well... then it cannot do it, of course. A 1995 computer may be too old to comfortable do browse the Internet with modern expectations, but a 2005 computer with CustomOS and 256 MB of RAM can indeed comfortably browse the Internet! In the Gaian Internet in 2026, a single website can easily occupy 300 MB of RAM or more, and so it would immediately crash the 2005 CustomOS computer. Even though it's easy for Pangeans to browse Gaian websites through easily accessible Pangean VPN's, browsing big tech Gaian websites with that 2005 computer would pretty much be impossible. This is because modern Gaian websites often use a Javascript library called "React", which makes websites slow and bloated, and if you disable Javascript, they won't load at all! There are some Pangean websites that are light-weight front-ends for heavy Gaian websites, which provide an interface that works perfectly without Javascript, and compress (or refuse to show at all, for ultra-low RAM devices) media. Server-side (of the Pangean front-end), of course. And just like everything in Pangea, the front-ends are endlessly customizable. Gaian websites don't appreciate the existence of these front-ends, and that's one of the many reasons Gaian websites and governments block Pangean IP's. However, a Pangean citizen may prefer to browse the Pangean Internet, and browsing it with the 2005 computer is perfectly doable! Pangean websites can also use complex Javascript libraries, but unlike in Gaia, in Pangea those Javascript libraries are 100% optional! That means, if you disable Javascript, it's not like the website won't load at all (which is what happens in Gaia), the website will return a "No Javascript" interface, just HTML and CSS, which works perfectly and is much lighter. Obviously, you can disable Javascript even if you have a very powerful device, the choice is always yours. There are some limitations in No-JS interfaces, namely that content cannot be loaded dynamically. Once the page is loaded, it remains in that way until you refresh, so that means there is no infinite scrolling and no dynamic loading of new comments/forum threads, so you always have to click "Next Page" on the bottom of the page, and it will lead you to a different page with the next page of content. Other than that, everything works perfectly: images, videos, text, everything is there, it just doesn't load dynamically. This makes pages much lighter and so browsing is perfectly usable with that 2005 computer. Images and videos are compressed server-side (or perhaps, just for the first time, as there are sets of lower-resolution media in the server so that the server doesn't have to compress media from scratch every time, once an image or a video is compressed for one person for the first time, it remains in the server, and then is served to whoever has that option of "show low-res media" in the settings... either one option or the other, depending on which one is more efficient). So, with a 2005 CustomOS computer with 256 MB RAM you can comfortably browse the modern Pangean Internet: videos up to 480p work flawlessly, you can read blogs, forums, comments, watch videos, listen to music, watch images, play browser games and so on! Without the Javascript bloat, and with compressed media, the Internet is lightning fast even for a 20 year old computer. So, yeah, browsing the modern Pangean Internet with a 1995 computer is awkward (even if doable), mostly just text, at most one low resolution image at at a time, to watch videos you need to download them etc. but with a 2005 computer it's perfectly comfortable! That's the power of CustomOS and the modern Pangean Internet! So if you bought a computer in 2005 in Pangea, then unless you want to watch HD or 4K videos or play demanding games (of which in Pangea there pretty much always exists a lightweight version that you can play on your 2005 computer anyway, it just has downgraded graphics but the content and plot is otherwise identical), you can perfectly still use it in 2026! There is no planned obsolescence in Pangea, the only obsolescence comes from hardware limitations, and that's it! In Gaia, there are websites like 68k news and FrogFind that allow modern web browsing on very old devices, but in Pangea this kind of things is way more extensive and more officially supported (usually by the websites themselves, rather than having to rely on a small project, like you need to do in Gaia). There's also a mobile version of CustomOS, different versions for touchscreen and non-touch screen devices. That is also extremely customizable. There is CustomOS Mobile (the non-touchscreen mobile version) and CustomOS Touch (the touchscreen mobile version). CustomOS Mobile apps have the ".cma" extension, but the compatibilities varies depending on the hardware. CustomOS Touch apps have the ".cta" extension, and because of intercompatibility, if the hardware is powerful enough, then .cta apps are compatible with CustomOS Mobile: instead of using a touch-screen, CustomOS Mobile opens .cta apps with a cursor that simulates the touch-screen and that you move with the directional keys of your non-touch screen mobile phone. In 2026 in Pangea there are very high end CustomOS Mobile phones (without the touchscreen) with 1 TB of storage memory and 16 GB of RAM. They can easily open any .cta app and use it with the cursor. There are also various customizable ways to simulate touch-screen gestures. Likewise, CustomOS Touch phones are compatible with .cma apps, by having a virtual phone keyboard on a part of the screen, to simulate CustomOS Mobile keypresses. Through emulators and compatibility layers, intercompatibility is extremely high. CustomOS Mobile and CustomOS Touch can also easily open .apk (Android) files, through compatibility layers. So if you have a CustomOS Mobile or CustomOS Touch phone, you simply install an apk file and you can use Android apps on there! You can even use apps that require Google Play Services, through a compatibility layer called "GPSCL" (Google Play Services Compatibility Layer), which is similar to MicroG, though there are still some apps that will not work. Though, if an app works without Google Play Services, it will surely work even without GPSCL. CustomOS Mobile/Touch can install apps through a file or even through an app store, depending on the choice of the user. App stores have no mandatory censorship, any "censorship" is optional and decided by the user, and those are simply filters. E.g. if one does not want to see sexual content, there are filters to hide that. If one does not want to see content where someone wears a yellow t-shirt, there are filters for that too. There are filters for everything, just like on the Pangean Internet in general, because pretty much every media in Pangea is tagged with metadata and tags precisely for the purpose of filtering (both for those who want to see specifically it and for those who don't want to see it). If you hate hugs and don't want to see them, there are filters for that too. For literally everything. CustomOS app stores don't require log-in to install apps, nor to save apps in favorites or folders. You only need to log-in to something (not necessarily to the app store itself) in order to leave comments and ratings. CustomOS app stores don't fully censor malware either! Malware is heavily removed by default, but you can go to the settings and select an option "Show Apps Flagged As Malware". If you click on that option, when you search something, among the results there may be malware, but it's very noticeably tagged as such, and it will give a warning even before installing it. However, the default option is to not show malware at all on the app store. CustomOS, unlike Android, is also compatible with pre-Android 5 apps, through the CustomOS compatibility layers. So if you want to play a game that existed only during the Android 4 era, you can play it on CustomOS. The apk files (including those before Android 5) can also be opened in CustomOS Desktop! In that case, the cursor simulates the touch-screen. CustomOS phones may or may not have bloatware preinstalled (some people may like the bloatware, after all), but it can always be uninstalled, unlike in Android phones! CustomOS phones can have anything on them customized: themes, icons, layouts, menus, anything! Just like on CustomOS Desktop, you can customize CustomOS phones to say weird things when you want to delete a file. Even the name of the options can be customized: instead of "Delete this file" you can have it say "Annihilate this motherfuckin' string of bytes!", and then when you delete the file, the deletion animation is that the file catches fire and, a sound of fire is played then the file is deleted. You can do that on CustomOS Desktop too, of course. Not every phone has CustomOS in Pangea: some very old phones may have a different OS and is not customizable. However, even flipphones from the 2000's often have CustomOS in it.

19: Language

The official language of Pangea is a certain loglang that I'm working on. I will explain it here once it's more developed. This section will be the last in this page, as it will be extremely long.