Day 18 - The Atheistic "Jesus Christ" Moment

Good day/night, whatever it may be, wherever you are reading this.  In recent posts I have "come out" as an atheist.  This didn't happen right away, it was a gradual understanding that began to lift the shroud from my eyes.  For those of you that haven't read my past posts, I would suggest quickly reading [The Thorn: http://temporalrelativity.blogspot.com/2011/10/day-16-thorn.html] and [I'm Coming Out: http://temporalrelativity.blogspot.com/2011/06/day-12-im-coming-out.html].  Those should give you a good synapses of my upbringing and realizations.

This post is a little different, however.  I feel as if I am having some type of crisis because of all this "transitioning and understanding".  The amazing thing about religion, as warped as it is, is that you get a nice little package.  You are born because of some "god" given reason, you live for some "god" given reason and you die for some "god" given reason.  Then, you live on into eternity in some alter-dimension of awesomeness (or complete misery depending on how things go).

The hard part of this, which, ironically is the comforting part, is that you don't have to question anything.  If you do happen to question something that is grand or deep in understanding you just have to "know" that "god works in mysterious ways"...  Again, I'm completely out of this brainwashed business, but I've run into a problem, the crisis I mentioned.  I am calling it "The Atheistic Jesus Christ Moment".  Any good Xian (Christian for those asking what this means) knows the story of Jesus Christ wandering the town and the hills and his "WTF" moment.  He suddenly realizes that God put him on Earth to just die for the sins of mankind and save all of our souls.  JC, being partly human, is understandably pissed off and starts freaking out, in that hippie/pacifist kind of way.  The details aren't as relevant as the overall concept, JC realizes what he is and doesn't understand why it is going down this way.  This is where I am, for different reasons of course.

I have, of course, have realized that the probability of some "ultra deity" is insanely minute.  I can't completely say there isn't something because I simply don't know, but it seems pretty certain.  Additionally, this means there is no "afterlife" or Holy War, or anything for that matter.  It means that, in the most probable case, we are simply an organization of energy existing in a vast network of organized energetic entities.  We have no direct purpose, there is no karma, and, most importantly, when this body gives out, I am gone.  Out of everything, it is the last part that is freaking me the hell out.

I am very cool with the unplanned organization of our existence.  To me, it's the randomness that makes it all so beautiful.  The fact that a beautiful sunset occurs simply because of the arrangement of molecules in the atmosphere and angle of light from the sun.  That is beautiful because it just happens and I love that. 

On the flip side, it's the ending that is driving me crazy.  The simple idea that when my "spark" extinguishes I will cease to exist in mind, body, and spirit.  I am simply a collection of organic molecules and organisms coexisting in a time-bound harmony.  Much like a star exists in harmony with it's supply of hydrogen, but a star isn't conscious.  It doesn't see its own beauty over a neighboring planet's horizon.  It doesn't create and raises organic copies of itself as we do.  It doesn't stop to make the decision to be an atheist or a theist, it just is.  But for me, that isn't enough.  I can't get the idea out of my mind, like a black hole it consumes my thoughts.  Descartes said "I think, therefore I am."  What about "I think, therefore I am not"?  Because we think, we die... without thought there would not be conscious existence and without conscious existence there would not be death...

I would love to hear from fellow atheists, both recent and seasoned on how (if you have) you dealt with this issue and these questions.  I feel like I was dreaming on a raft in the middle of an ocean and have awaken.  The initial pleasure of knowing that I am truly awake is/was fantastic, however the idea that I'm floating on a raft in the middle of an ocean is slowly sinking in...

Day 17 - Mo' Money, Mo' Problems

Good day all, it's Day 17 here... I want to talk about money, specifically. 

We seem to be having some serious world wide issues with money, whether it is the dollar, the ruple, gems, whatever.  Many countries are falling into a "debt crisis" and are pretty much left holding the short end of the stick.  The need to beg some other country, who is accused by many with leveraging the market to keep their currency stable, to "bail them out".  In any event, this all seems very childish...

I'm going to say something that has been said many times before, but I think it needs to be revisited with a little clarity: Why don't we just get rid of money altogether?  ::gasp::  Before we start the comments/remarks/eye-rolling/page-closing, let's just talk about it first...

What is money, exactly?  We'll go to Wikipedia for this:
"
Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context.^[1][2][3] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment.^[4][5] Any kind of object or secure verifiable record that fulfills these functions can serve as money.
Money originated as commodity money, but nearly all contemporary money systems are based on fiat money.^[4] Fiat money is without intrinsic use value as a physical commodity, and derives its value by being declared by a government to be legal tender; that is, it must be accepted as a form of payment within the boundaries of the country, for "all debts, public and private".
The money supply of a country consists of currency (banknotes and coins) and bank money (the balance held in checking accounts and savings accounts). Bank money usually forms by far the largest part of the money supply. ^{[6][7][8]
" (Wikipedia.org)}

That is directly from Wikipedia.  The most important part, to me and my point, is the second paragraph regarding "fiat money".  Now we visit Wikipedia regarding "fiat money":

"Fiat money or fiat currency is money whose value is not derived from any intrinsic value or guarantee that it can be converted into a valuable commodity (such as gold). Instead, it has value only by government order (fiat). Usually, the government declares the fiat currency (typically notes and coins from a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve System in the U.S.) to be legal tender, making it unlawful to not accept the fiat currency as a means of repayment for all debts, public and private.^[23][24]"

In this excerpt, we are looking directly at this line: "Instead, it has value only by government order (fiat). ".  Now, I don't know about anyone else in this virtual room, but that seems a little ridiculous to me.  If I read it correctly, this is saying that US dollars (for example) are only valuable because the government says so.  It appears that the value is backed by taxation, for the most part, which is odd, because essentially you are saying this money is guaranteed because I am getting X% back through taxation...  In any event, we can start to see how it has no value, at all.  It is only necessary, really, for international trading.  If a country were self-sufficient (requiring no outside trade/help) it could probably do very well without money at all.

This brings me to my main point, why not just get rid of it?  I know what you're thinking, mostly: What about workers? Services? Commodities like food? Housing? etc...  My answer: free.  Listen, you want a house?  Either have someone who owns a construction business build it for you, or build it yourself.  Or, go ahead and live in a condo.  No rent, all utilities are on, there is some form of TV and Internet.  Need food?  Go to the store and get what you need.  What about my car? Go get one...

Okay, I can keep going, but there is one obviously gigantic flaw here: Why would anyone work or do anything for that matter if everything was free?  Why would people pick up the trash or cut grass or build houses or own small businesses if they didn't need money? 

Here is my answer to that: because they would have to.  There would need to be one key point in all of this.  The problem with free is that is only works under the condition that there is a producer and a consumer.  We can't have all consumers, otherwise there would be no product to be free.  So, in my opinion, there would need to be a requirement for a free society.  You need to have a job.  That doesn't mean we can all go out and be doctors because there are requirements to be a doctor, educational requirements and experience requirements.  We can't all go open coconut shops because then nobody will be around to do anything else, and in addition, not everyone wants to open a coconut shop.  I like programming, I would continue to write programs for my job, no problem, I love it.  My wife, she likes retail, she might continue to do that while she gets an education in something specific.  Perhaps I will continue to program while I educate myself as well.  The key is, everyone needs to work and some people will need to do basic jobs because they don't have any skills, but maybe they'll seek education and do that while their working. 

There is a way to make it work, and honestly it is probably less complex than our current global financial systems.  Yes, this means that everyone would be equal.  No, it does not mean everyone will go out and want a mansion (who's going to clean and maintain it when their not getting paid for it...).  I would really love some feedback, I love comments and discussions and sadly I don't get as much as I would like.  So please, feel free to comment, I open it up to Anonymous comments for that reason, even if you want to just flame the hell out of me. 

Day 16 - The Thorn

The thorn.  It is a painful little object that exists in one of the most unexpected places, the stem of the rose.  An item that symbolizes beauty and love.  It has manifested itself into history and our lives, and yet, the thorn is always overlooked.  It is always there, the possibility of danger and pain, but the beauty and mystique of the rose overshadows it.

So what is the point (pun severely intended)?  During my viewing of last night's #cnndebate , I noticed something very scary, and very real.  There was a question about religion, because of Romney's following of the Mormon faith, it has become somewhat of a controversy.  The question was: "Does it matter what a candidates faith is?".  I thought to myself, does it matter if a candidate has any faith at all?  As I thought about this, I listened to their responses about how faith governs morals and (from Newt) "How can you have morals without faith?" or "How can you be [trusted] with power when you don't pray?".  I listened, in awe, and realized that they were serious.  Then I heard the crowd cheer in approval and agreement, and I thought, they are serious too...

So where does this all tie together?  I've talked about this before, in other posts, but this is a little more specific, because it is becoming more clear and evident.  Religion is like the rose.  On the surface it is supposed to symbolize all that is beautiful in our world/lives and, of course, a strong symbol of love.  This is how it started of course. 

A great many years ago, before Catholics and Buddha, there were some basics.  There were "people" with very limited brain functions.  They had just came out of the jungles and out into the open lands.  They were bare, exposed, with very little real defenses.  They had one very special gift though, the ability to reason, to a degree, and that would prove to be the greatest advantage of all.  Many things were difficult to understand for early man, I would imagine.  My kids still are scared by lightning and thunder and need a simple explanation to help them cope with it.  Could you imagine the first humans trying to understand this?  We only understood basic concepts like power, hunger, thirst, and the desire to procreate.  The idea that molecules at different atmospheric pressures collide and create an immense burst of electrical energy wasn't even feasible at their point in time.  If I, as an early human, could make fire by rubbing sticks or smashing "rocks" together, then something (or someone) must be creating this lightning and thunder, or the wind and rain, etc.  It's simplicity is almost beautiful in a way.  There were so naive (not in a bad way) to the world and physics around them that they applied this logic to these phenomena.  I strongly believe that this simple application is probably what help early man survive, in any fashion.  The idea that something greater than them existed and moved the heavens and earth and was particularly concerned about whether or not the early humans would give it a proper sacrifice is simply beautiful.  I am grateful for their logic because it pushed them to build immense structures, elaborate systems of communal societies, moral structures, and so much more.

Something happened though.  At some point, religion shifted from the rose to the thorn.  Many might say it was the founding of science, but I disagree.  Science has always been there, the desire to reason and discover why something exists.  Our scientific methods have certainly improved over time, but in the beginning, religion stemmed from science.  This isn't the case then, it is something much more sinister.  Somewhere, somehow, somebody realized that religion is a very powerful tool.  They realized that not only did it explain things, but it kept order through fear.  Religion explained the unknown for people and they were addicted to it.  It may have been subtle or occurred over time, but nonetheless, the day came when somebody realized there wasn't actually any God (or gods).  This person, at the time, was one of the more powerful people at the time because they separated themselves from the crowd.  Imagine you're stuck in some 4th dimensional cube with millions of people.  Everyone is content living inside of this small, cramped cube, facing the same direction.  You happen to turn around and there is a door.  You decide to open that door and walk through.  Suddenly, you find yourself standing outside of the cube, which, in comparison, is about the size of a Lego block.  Imagine the amount of control you have in this situation.  But, you're a smart person, you decide not to disturb the block or tell anyone else.  So, you go back inside the cube and you tell everyone that we must do as we have done, we must stay inside this block and face forward or we'll never be able to attain eternal salvation.

Oh yes, there's more... Everyone is petrified, some people see the door but you tell them if they leave through that door they are banished forever from the cube and will never attain salvation.  Now, as time passes, other people call your bluff and go through the door.  So what the hell do you do now?  Let them in on the piece of the pie!  You tell them that you found this exit a long time ago and you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want because we are not restricted by this fictional cube.  However, you tell them that everyone inside the cube is petrified and will essentially stay calm and organized as long as they believe that the cube is real and it's message is clear and true.  So, these people go along with your plan and now you're living the high life, with some friends.

This, my fellow readers, is what religion has become.  It has become a simple thorn, every time we now try to admire beauty and express love, we are pained with this constant fear of being pricked, and hurt.  There are people, many people in fact, in this world that know that religion and God or gods, are not real.  It simply doesn't exist.  I had a "helluva" hard time coming to grips with this, even now, sometimes, it's hard for me to do it, but I do, just like quitting smoking.  The problem is that it is beat into our minds for so long, and it is everywhere we go and have been.  It has become much more subtle over time, but the fear and pain of it still exists.  I mean, me simply typing this article implies that I will never attain eternal salvation, but I am calling bullshit.  I am standing (well sitting) here and simply calling bullshit.  I ask that you do it too. 

We (well the former me) have been oppressed by people that have figured this out a long time ago.  Think about who religion caters to... the poor, the sick, the less fortunate, they will someday inherit a kingdom so much greater than this life or any riches or gold, blah blah blah.  It is crap.  It is a way to keep you humble and secure.  Look at all the successful people in this world.  Yes, some of them have done both, legitimately believed in religion AND had material success.  Overall though, many of these people simply walk over "the little guy" and claim to be religious and follow God.  It's a big screen and a lie.  They have realized, just as I have that religion doesn't actually exists and they are free to do whatever they want without any moral consequences outside of the law (which is why they spend so much money lobbying congress and having political careers, to influence the law).

I don't think it is time to abandon morals and start cut-throating each other, but I think it is time to abandon religion.  We can live wholesome, moral lives without the threat of God.  Hell, you are probably more moral if you do it because you want to, without the fear of some eternal damnation over your head.  The choice is up to you of course, but there simply is no compelling evidence that God, or gods, is real.  Every argument you are going to make defending religion is explainable and refutable by simple logic or lack of any real proof. It is time to take the thorn out of our sides and gaze upon existence's true beauty.  The fact that this is all happenstance and random is even more amazing to me than if some ultimate being crafted it.  I hope you'll join me outside of the cube, because the possibilities are limitless.

Day 15 - Mathematics for the Rich and Poor

   So, there is a whole mess of economic woes and travesty about the world.  Threats of the USPS shutting down, the Euro falling apart, and many nations unable to sustain their economies plague the news.  I have been thinking alot about the US however because our situation seems relativitly stupid (for lack of a better term).

   We have a lot of people with wealth in this country and we have a pretty robust system of business and enterprise and such.  However, it just appears that the situation keeps getting worse.  It is quite clear that businesses are hurting strictly because their are not enough people buying their merchandise.  This is happening because not enough people have money to buy their merchandise.

   Now, we can argue about what is fair and what is right and not right and so on, but that is useless.  The main point is that we have to have a sustainable economy.  Let's be real, if the global market collapses, and businesses shut down, all the money in the world won't matter if there isn't any value to it.  Additionally, people with more money need people with less money in order to make the world go round, it isn't rocket science so I won't go into it too much.

I have decided however, to explain it a little bit.  The mathematics are simple and hopefully will help knock some sense around.  Right now, it appears to be the common number that 1% control 99% of the wealth in the country.  I am also using relatively simple numbers to get the point across since the exact numbers are not relavent and approximations will do.

{This section has been revised below in the updated area}
So, let us say we have a country US with 100 people in it.  US makes exactly $100 in total wealth a day.  By our numbers before.  This would mean that there is 1 person that has $99.01 a day and 99 people that each have .01 per day.  Now, let's say there are 10 businesses in US.  In order to survive each business needs $1 a day.

By our current logic, it is unsustainable.  There is no reason for the 1 person to shop at all 10 stores a day, they would go to 1 store a day give them their dollar, remain rich and the store survives.  Even if the other 99 people shop at the same exact store, it would eventually be unable to sustain itself since it would only take in .99 a day.  Therefore the other 9 stores die out, the other 99 people have nowhere to shop, etc etc, economic collapse...

Let us readjust some of these numbers.  If we take 5% of that 1 person's wealth and redistribute it to the other 99 people.  These are our new numbers.  1 person has ~ $80 a day.  99 people have ~ .20 each.  Now, we can simply take all 100 people and divide it by 10 (stores), that is 10 people per store. 
1 store will have the 1 rich person and 9 "other people" and the other stores will have 10 "other people".  At 10 people spending .20 at the store per day, that is 2.00 a day.  More than enough to sustain each store, perhaps each person spends .19 a day and keep .01 in the bank for the future... Economy stable, life moves on wonderfully, businesses have extra money, they hire more people, etc etc etc.
{end of revision}

It is very simple mathematics, it doesn't matter about what is yours and this and that.  It is irrelevant, there are very very few people in this world that earned every dollar they have by blood, sweat, and tears.  In order for this entire system to work correctly, more money needs to be redistributed to the majority of people, bottom line.

UPDATE:  9/7/2011 1215

I am updating my logic because it was flawed.  The numbers I got were wrong, as I misread my source.  In any event, I have redone the math here.

So, continue on the idea that we have 100 people in the country of US.  US makes exactly $100.00 a day.  According to source A, 1 person will have $34.60, 19 people will each have $2.66, and 80 people will have $.15, per day.

According to source B, minus the housing expense at 32.9%, and 9.9% for savings,  I am attributing all others to expenditures as various business, therefore, about 57% of each person's total will go towards a business of some sort.  For the 1 person, they will spend $19.72, 19 people will spend $1.52, and 80 people will spend $.11 per day (in our case since our people get paid daily in this scenario).

Now, as in our scenario, we have 10 businesses evenly distribute throughout US and it works out that each store recieves business from the same 10% of our population.  Therefore, 1 store will recieve $21.35 (the 1 rich guy, 1 upper guy, and 8 poor people), 9 stores will receive $3.92 (2 upper guys, and 8 poor people each).  This gives 9 stores a $2.92 profit margin and 1 store a $20.35 profit margin.  It also lets the 1 rich guy save $14.88, the 19 upper guys save $1.14, and the 80 poor people save $.08.

If we redistribute the wealth from the rich guy to the poor guys by 15%, and upper to poor by 2%  we get:
1 person has $20.00, 19 people have $2.52, and 80 people get $.40.

Using our same logic from above with the stores.  We take 57% of each person's total, rich = $11.4 each, upper = $1.44, poor = $.23.

Each store gets this now: 1 store gets $14.67 , 9 stores get $4.74.  Poor people now save $.17, double what they saved before.  Rich save $8.6 (drastically less) and uppers save $1.08 (about the same).  The other 9 stores get almost a dollar more than they were before too, which boosts jobs and so forth.


SOURCES:
A: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
B: http://financialplan.about.com/od/budgetin1/f/ExpensePercent.htm

Day 14 - Globalism

It has been a few days (to say the least) since my previous post.  Sometimes the realities of life can take longer than expected.  In any case, I am writing about something that has been deep in my mind for a long time: Globalism.

Anyone that has been following along may remember a previous post regarding the idea of H.O.P.E. (from my Day - 10) blog.  You should check it out now, if you haven't read it.  Anyway, the idea was that in order for Humans to explore space "Star Trek style", we would need to make leaps of faith and people would have to work together.  This concept actually originated in a previously less mature idea, that has since been "fully" developed in my mind: Globalism.

Before I begin, I did a little search to see if the idea of Globalism has been constructed and discussed in full.  There is a wiki page for it and several items of note discussing the idea of Globalism and globalization.  At the end of the blog, I will post some reference links so you can check them out.


My definition, for purposes of this blog, of Globalism is this:  The unification of world powers and nations to create a global entity capable of enforcing basic human rights, settling conflict, making scientific progressions for Humanity, and, in the long term, being established as the representative of Earth.

We have several groups and alliances and such that were formed due to pressing issues at the time, but most of it is not focused on Humanity as a whole, instead it is for the benefit of the participating countries.  We have severe financial issues looming around the world, military conflicts, natural disasters, basic human rights violations, poverty and famine.  These issues are generally handled by a few countries that attempt to solve them, the US being a major contender in leading these efforts.  The problem is that the US is now taking on too much responsibility and our interior structure is beginning to collapse because we are stretched to thin, financially (which trickles problems down).  This effect can also be seen in equally helpful, yet smaller, Euro nations.

One major issue is resources.  We can't supply resources for every third world country in addition to our own population.  When I refer to "We" now, it is all countries that embrace these burdens, not just the US.  However, we can't simply sit back and watch fellow human beings die of starvation because of where they were born.  In order for a species to survive it must do what it can to make sure those that want to survive have a chance.  With diversity among our species our chances for long term survival increase.  The varied ways of help can be debated about, but in the end, it comes down to helping and working together.

So how is this problem solved?  Globalism. 
The problems will only get worse, the resource deficit will get larger, the poverty base will increase, and more nations will fall victim to losing their 1st world country status.  Only small nations like Switzerland will have a fighting chance, but they certainly will not be in a position to pick up the responsibilities that the US will be unable to maintain.  The only way, I can see, to solve this is to have a country only worry about itself.  However, this will completely negate our requirements as Humans to help out eachother and the less fortunate of our species.  Many of our resources are spent protecting our intellectual properties in science and defense against other nations, while they are using resources to achieve the same things we have already discovered.  This is a giant waste of time and resources.

What is the first step in the solution of Globalism?
  We need to create a body, a governmental type body that is neutral to Earth and it's citizens.  In my opinion, this should be setup in Africa.  My thought would either be central Africa at the edge of the desert line, or in the Horn of Africa.  This will be a massive city, so it will need space.  However, there are some serious benefits to this.  Many people in the area are poor and famished, and many areas are just wide open land.  The need to build this city will require hundreds of thousands of jobs which can immediately boost local economies and help immediately offset some of the local poverty issues in the areas surrounding.  The city should be as green as technologically possible and leave little, to no, carbon footprint.  This will be a feat, but it is manageable if tackled from the beginning.  The city should have science labs, administration buildings, conference centers, airport, military base, and a small local economy for the residents of the city.  It is possible that this will help push growth to outside of the city itself for citizens looking to get away for awhile and help spur the local economies even more.  In any event, this is how it should be done.  My suggestion for Africa is simply because it is the most central and underdeveloped area on the planet to most of the world's major powers and nations.   Of course, this will all need to be funded...

How is this whole thing going to get funded and managed?
  Well, it needs to be created and setup under the same idea of our current Alliances.  Countries wishing to partake will band together and use their funding and resources to create this central location.  Citizens from their nations will have the option of being citizens of this new city and, for all purposes, a sovereign nation, although unable to declare freedom from its governing nations.  For now, I will continue to refer to this new area as EA (Earth Alliance).  Of course, the original expenditures will be grand and any future nation wishing to join will need to contribute resources, in relation to it's population size, in ratio to the original founding nations resource contributions.  There will be a military and scientists and governing personnel from all allied nations.  Any nation wishing to partake must strictly follow the guidelines required by EA.  Most of these will be the removal of nuclear warheads from joining countries, the open border policy of allowing any nation part of EA access to their country, as long as that country follows strict citizen identification requirements, and such.  Each participating country would need to pay a "membership fee", more like resources and such that need to continue the operations of the EA.  The ratio percentage will be flat, for example all participating countries will contribute 10% of their resources annually, just as an example. 

So why go through all of this effort?
It needs to be done because it is a necessity.  Either now or in the future this will have to happen.  Wasting resources might be a luxury we have now (although not really), but it soon will become a forceful situation where we need to preserve everything we have.  Bickering over which country is more superior for some imaginary title of supreme ruler of Earth will need to come to an end.  With the EA, nations will be able to focus less resources into the things that are equal to Humanity: civil rights, defense, aid, scientific breakthroughs, etc.  All nations will benefit from the EA that adhere to the guidelines set by the EA, which is determined by authoritive figures designated by each nation.  In the end, each nation is trying to be first, so that they have the coveted technology and they will be the leading nation, for, in the end, more money, bigger armies and a greater sphere of influence.

The problem is that more competition is requiring more money, so the return on these investments is becoming more of a deficit than a surplus, to the point where all of our nations will put themselves in debt, by trying to outdo eachother to make more money....  Bigger armies.. another debt.  It just isn't necessary anymore.  We are not in the Imperliastic Roman times or Victorian-era.  Times are different, at the very worst, we would only need one large army of Earth to defend against some invading alien species.  Again, that is just at speculation on the only reason we'd need a large standing army.  In that case, our countries would work together anyway to defend Earth and it's citizens.  Our armies work in small units now, to take our localized extremist groups.  Nobody is worried about a red scare or the rise of the Kremlin anymore, those days are over.  Even the sphere of influence is useless.  Technology is reigning supreme.  Microsoft and Apple have a larger effect on the global population than the US or China.  This is true with hardware manufacturers for cell phones and networking equipment, car manufacturers, etc.  The business world is already embracing globalism because it makes fiscal sense.  It will do the same for our governments.

In the end, we can take the things that are important to all of Humanity and put them on the responsibility of all nations, not just a few.  This will leave the nations with time and finances to spend on local and culturally significant things individual to each nation.  Citizens in the US, China, Iraq, South Africe, the EU, etc can live in peace knowing that a global power is at work protecting the freedoms that all creatures deserve to have without having messy political battles and a country completely defunded.  Even jobs, in my opinion would sore, the EA could dish out manufacturing responsiblities to many nations for military production, food production, scientific equipment, contractors, etc.  Space exploration, at least deep space exploration, is hindered by nations competing against eachother to do the same thing.  Imagine if Russia, China, and the US worked together on a space project?  I guarantee we would be landing on Mars in less than 10 years.  It would take a great deal of work and effort, but the end result, I think, would solve a lot of our on going issues in the world today.