Bring4th

Article about animals:

Animals are conscious and should be treated as such


September 2012 by Marc Bekoff
Magazine issue 2883
(Marc Bekoff is an emeritus professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He has written many essays and books about animal emotions, animal consciousness and animal protection.)

Now that scientists have belatedly declared that mammals, birds and many other animals are conscious, it is time for society to act

ARE animals conscious? This question has a long and venerable history. Charles Darwin asked it when pondering the evolution of consciousness. His ideas about evolutionary continuity - that differences between species are differences in degree rather than kind - lead to a firm conclusion that if we have something, "they" (other animals) have it too.

In July of this year, the question was discussed in detail by a group of scientists gathered at the University of Cambridge for the first annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference. Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, spent the latter part of his career studying consciousness and in 1994 published a book about it, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The scientific search for the soul.

The upshot of the meeting was the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which was publicly proclaimed by three eminent neuroscientists, David Edelman of the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla, California, Philip Low of Stanford University and Christof Koch of the California Institute of Technology.

The declaration concludes that "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

My first take on the declaration was incredulity. Did we really need this statement of the obvious? Many renowned researchers reached the same conclusion years ago.

The declaration also contains some omissions. All but one of the signatories are lab researchers; the declaration would have benefited from perspectives from researchers who have done long-term studies of wild animals, including nonhuman primates, social carnivores, cetaceans, rodents and birds.

I was also disappointed that the declaration did not include fish, because the evidence supporting consciousness in this group of vertebrates is also compelling.

Nevertheless, we should applaud them for doing this. The declaration is not aimed at scientists: as its author, Low, said prior to the declaration: "We came to a consensus that now was perhaps the time to make a statement for the public... It might be obvious to everybody in this room that animals have consciousness; it is not obvious to the rest of the world."

The important question now is: will this declaration make a difference? What are these scientists and others going to do now that they agree that consciousness is widespread in the animal kingdom?

I hope the declaration will be used to protect animals from being treated abusively and inhumanely. All too often, sound scientific knowledge about animal cognition, emotions and consciousness is not recognised in animal welfare laws. We know, for example, that mice, rats and chickens display empathy, but this knowledge has not been factored into the US Federal Animal Welfare Act. Around 25 million of these animals, including fish, are used in invasive research each year. They account for more than 95 per cent of animals used in research in the US. I'm constantly astounded that those who decide on regulations on animal use have ignored these data.

Not all legislation ignores the science. The European Union's Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force on 1 December 2009, recognises that animals are sentient beings and calls on member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals" in agriculture, fisheries, transport, research and development and space policies.

There are still scientific sceptics about animal consciousness. In his book, Crick wrote "it is sentimental to idealize animals" and that for many animals life in captivity is better, longer and less brutal than life in the wild.

Similar views still prevail in some quarters. In her recent book Why Animals Matter: Animal consciousness, animal welfare, and human well-being, Marian Stamp Dawkins at the University of Oxford claims we still don't really know if other animals are conscious and that we should "remain skeptical and agnostic... Militantly agnostic if necessary."

Dawkins inexplicably ignores the data that those at the meeting used to formulate their declaration, and goes so far as to claim that it is actually harmful to animals to base welfare decisions on their being conscious.

I consider this irresponsible. Those who choose to harm animals can easily use Dawkins's position to justify their actions. Perhaps given the conclusions of the Cambridge gathering, what I call "Dawkins's Dangerous Idea" will finally be shelved. I don't see how anyone who keeps abreast of the literature on animal pain, sentience and consciousness - and has worked closely with any of a wide array of animals - could remain sceptical and agnostic about whether they are conscious.

Let us applaud the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and work hard to get animals the protection they deserve. And let us hope that the declaration is not simply a grandstanding gesture but rather something with teeth, something that leads to action. We should all take this opportunity to stop the abuse of millions upon millions of conscious animals in the name of science, education, food, clothing and entertainment. We owe it to them to use what we know on their behalf and to factor compassion and empathy into our treatment of them.

In my opinion animals are not truly conscious. They act with their subconscious. As 2d beings, they aren't subjected to karma and they are exempt from it.

Anyway as they carry a soul inside, that makes them a Divine creature and should be treated as Divinely

Dogs are only in the moment. They don't hold onto when you do wrong against them.
That is a 2D consciousness without the veil.

According to the Law of One, it's completely possible for an animal to house a 3D consciousness - Ra speaks specifically about it with Gandalf.

Quote:Ra: I am Ra. The entity, mind/body/spirit complex, Gandalf, being harvestable third density, is open to the same type of psychic attack to which you yourselves are vulnerable. Therefore, through the mechanism of images and dreams, it is potentially possible for negative concepts to be offered to this mind/body/spirit complex, thus having possible deleterious results. The entity, Fairchild, though harvestable through investment, does not have the vulnerability to attack in as great an amount due to a lack of the mind complex activity in the distortion of conscious devotion.

For protection of these entities we might indicate two possibilities. Firstly, the meditation putting on the armor of light. Secondly, the repetition of short ritual sentences known to this instrument from the establishment which distorts spiritual oneness for this instrument. This instrument’s knowledge will suffice. This will aid due to the alerting of many discarnate entities also aware of these ritual sentences. The meditation is appropriate at the time of the activity on behalf of these entities. The ritual may be repeated with efficacy from this time until the safe return, at convenient intervals.

It's very clear that second density beings are totally capable of being made harvestable towards third - and I don't discount the idea that even higher density beings might enspirit animal body complexes for a time.

I don't know if "being harvestable" is entirely concomitant with "having 3D consciousness".  

For example, we could be 4D harvestable, but it doesn't mean we have 4D consciousness.  The 4D consciousness doesn't occur until after the harvest.  I tend to think it would be similar with animals.  As I understand it, the investiture Ra is talking about is the gradual individuation of these beings into specific personalities, apart from the group animal mind.  But even with these spiritual refinements, they are still 2nd density, just as we may become very loving beings, yet are still 3rd density. 

Now, the Maldek entities, on the other hand, are 3rd density beings incarnate in 2nd density bodies.  That is a slightly different situation, but the expressed result is the same.  They are self aware, yet unable to properly express it, due to the limitations of their biological vehicles.  They would need a 3rd density physical vehicle to properly express 3rd density consciousness.  So spiritually, they are 3rd density, but are operating with 2nd density intelligence due to the limitations of their biological brain.  Just as we would be limited in expression if we suffered brain damage which caused the 3rd density circuitry of our brains that allowed the expression of self awareness to malfunction. 

It's clear that animals shouldn't be mistreated, whether they are 2nd density or 3rd density.

In either case, animals are conscious, whether they are self aware or not.  Even humans are not "fully conscious".  That's a tall order we won't enjoy till 7th density.  

Ra has said 3rd density is the only plane of forgetting (the only plane with the spiritual veil).

With the veil not in place animals experience reality differently, "Ra: [...] Such is the result of the mind/body/spirit which is not complex. There is the possibility of love of other-selves and service to other-selves, but there is the overwhelming awareness of the Creator in the self. The connection with the Creator is that of the umbilical cord. The security is total. Therefore, no love is terribly important; no pain terribly frightening; no effort, therefore, is made to serve for love or to benefit from fear."

So if these are correct conclusions, animals are more aware than us (in some ways).  They know intuitively they aren't random combinations of material constituents.  However, I doubt they contemplate this to any great extent, and instead just accept it as a fact of reality.  They operate on instinct and intuition, not rational thought.

However, even with no veil, surface and instinctual behaviors are much the same.  Animals still eat each other (obviously).  And I don't think they fear death as much as humans do, since they know, rather than believe, it is not the real end.  But that doesn't give us the right to torture or mistreat them.  And there is still a biological imperative to thrive (clearly).

That is specifically why we have the veil. To add contemplation to our actions. We're just animals with bigger brains because we have more choices to make.

I think, for the most part, consciousness levels vary with vibrational speed, so if a 2nd density is harvestable 3rd, it would be in the lowest octave of 3rd density and have a consciousness that vibrates accordingly. We're stuck in 3D body suits at this time but I don't think that excludes us from experiencing 4D consciousness, especially as Earth is switching over and more of us reach that level. Ra says Gandalf is vulnerable to psychic attack unlike other 2d creatures who weren't harvestable, which tells me something is decidedly different with his cognition. I don't buy the "limits of the brain" excuse, either - what about the limits of our brain? Supposedly as the shift happens we're having all sorts of DNA activation, etc. Why couldn't this happen to 2D? We all use the same DNA code! Also, it's arguable that animals communicate on a telepathic level - something very, very few humans are capable of at this point.


Animals are capable of expressing a palpable purity of love that I think most of us associate with fourth dimensional vibrations. They also very often live a life that is one that is entirely service to others. Even in Buddhism it is believed that an animal can become a Buddha. I believe this, too. I've had plenty of green-ray energy transfers from pets and other animals.

Either way, it's almost semantics, I see animals as sentient and worthy of the same respect and care as humans. I'm not going to put myself on a pedestal and say animals are any less than me because I'm of a higher density - that's the last thing Ra or Q'uo or any STO positive entity does.

Also, we still eat other animals too. We're very closely related you see!

you'll see your pets again. stop worrying

(03-15-2015, 08:15 PM)Jade Wrote: [ -> ]According to the Law of One, it's completely possible for an animal to house a 3D consciousness - Ra speaks specifically about it with Gandalf.

Any animal named Gandalf shows potential up to 5th density awareness. Behold the power and glory of an animal maiar.

(03-15-2015, 03:24 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]The declaration concludes that "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

What are "nuerological substrates"? Is that akin to saying that we share the same motherboard with animals but we have different software running on our own?

"Different" perhaps as in more complex, more sophisticated, more self-aware, more rational, more reflective, etc.

(03-17-2015, 10:42 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-15-2015, 03:24 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]The declaration concludes that "non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

What are "nuerological substrates"? Is that akin to saying that we share the same motherboard with animals but we have different software running on our own?

"Different" perhaps as in more complex, more sophisticated, more self-aware, more rational, more reflective, etc.

I didn't write the article, Marc Beckoff did. I assume by substrates you are correct in your assumption; and means the rudimentary building blocks are the same. 

Plants are conscious as well, it was shown in Primary Perception. Everything is alive and can feel suffering. Suffering is catalyst.

(03-17-2015, 02:20 PM)Matt1 Wrote: [ -> ]Plants are conscious as well, it was shown in Primary Perception.

Consciousness it literally fundamental and the root of all things in creation.

The article seemed to imply that animals develop consciousness as a result of their biology, ie. neural substrates.  That is, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of our biology.  That is a materialist, non-spiritual point of view.   Everything derives from consciousness, the sun, the earth, the galaxy, the animals, the plants, the humans.

Ra says " The body is a creature of the mind's creation"

(03-17-2015, 02:31 PM)Shemaya Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-17-2015, 02:20 PM)Matt1 Wrote: [ -> ]Plants are conscious as well, it was shown in Primary Perception.

Consciousness it literally fundamental and the root of all things in creation.

The article seemed to imply that animals develop consciousness as a result of their biology, ie. neural substrates.  Like consciousness is an epiphenomenon of our biology.  That is a materialist, non-spiritual point of view.   Everything derives from consciousness, the sun the earth, the galaxy, the animal, the plants, the humans.

You are missing the point of the article. It is about mainstream science finally getting onboard from their point of view, and the author is in hopes that this will mean better treatment of animals. To keep veering off this idea by talking about the consciousness of all things philosophically is okay, but how does that address compassion for animals? 

For instance, consider the suffering animals experience because of animal testing. Talk all you want about the philosophy of consciousness, that's fine, but this author has been trying to awaken the public to change public acceptance of animal cruelty. If now, you would like to iterate that all is accepted because of the LOO, fine. If anyone can stomach such cruelty and be fine with it, that's the individual's prerogative. 

(03-17-2015, 02:45 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-17-2015, 02:31 PM)Shemaya Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-17-2015, 02:20 PM)Matt1 Wrote: [ -> ]Plants are conscious as well, it was shown in Primary Perception.

Consciousness it literally fundamental and the root of all things in creation.

The article seemed to imply that animals develop consciousness as a result of their biology, ie. neural substrates.  Like consciousness is an epiphenomenon of our biology.  That is a materialist, non-spiritual point of view.   Everything derives from consciousness, the sun the earth, the galaxy, the animal, the plants, the humans.

You are missing the point of the article. It is about mainstream science finally getting onboard from their point of view, and the author is in hopes that this will mean better treatment of animals. To keep veering off this idea by talking about the consciousness of all things philosophically is okay, but how does that address compassion for animals? 

For instance, consider the suffering animals experience because of animal testing. Talk all you want about the philosophy of consciousness, that's fine, but this author has been trying to awaken the public to change public acceptance of animal cruelty. If now, you would like to iterate that all is accepted because of the LOO, fine. If anyone can stomach such cruelty and be fine with it, that's the individual's prerogative. 

All things are alive and are suffering. All things are moving towards love. The plant, animal and Human are the same in this way.

(03-17-2015, 02:49 PM)Matt1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-17-2015, 02:45 PM)Diana Wrote: [ -> ]You are missing the point of the article. It is about mainstream science finally getting onboard from their point of view, and the author is in hopes that this will mean better treatment of animals. To keep veering off this idea by talking about the consciousness of all things philosophically is okay, but how does that address compassion for animals? 

For instance, consider the suffering animals experience because of animal testing. Talk all you want about the philosophy of consciousness, that's fine, but this author has been trying to awaken the public to change public acceptance of animal cruelty. If now, you would like to iterate that all is accepted because of the LOO, fine. If anyone can stomach such cruelty and be fine with it, that's the individual's prerogative. 

All things are alive and are suffering. All things are moving towards love. The plant, animal and Human are the same in this way.

I am not fine with cruelty.  That is really good, in my view, to make a declaration in order to persuade scientists to change their ideas about how they do their work.  A proactive way to raise awareness/consciousness.  I think the article is positive.

And I agree with Matt, that we are all one moving towards love, and if anyone is suffering,  we all suffer on this planet.  

Fortunately there will be little or no suffering in 4D positive. Certainly less catalyst.

Amen, brother!

Diana, I think that indeed too many of us are too numb to see the suffering of not only 2D life, but also of 3D life. Using animals for fure and testing make-up products?! Inflicting them pain because of THAT?! What the heck...

In regards to eating meat though, in many intances, eating meat is "necessary for individual needs" or what did Ra said, but I believe that most of the times we eat it, because it tastes good, or we are used to eat it or something similar. I also believe that if each human would kill/harvest for its own food, that the catalyst would increase, and make us to polarize faster, because the killing/harvesting would either numb us further, making us to perhaps polarizng in a more negative sense, or it would make us to stop killing and harvesting, opening up our green ray. But I don't know. I just know that I was a vegatarian for 7 years in my youth, but stopped when I got pregnant. I got an extreme urge to eat the meat again and so I did. I tried to become vegetarian ever since, but didn't succeed completely. Today I eat meat, but mostly wild meat which one of my relatives hunt, except when I am in restaurant or at some dinner. Then I eat what is offered.

Anyway, I remember that when I was a vegetarian in my younger years, I wanted to not only be a vegetarian, but a fruitarian. I didn't even want to eat carrots, sallad, potatoes and similar vegetables where the plant had to die in order to provide the food for me. I wanted to harvest that which was naturally given, which is tomatoes, cucumbers, zucchini, aubergines, nuts and fruits. And you could indeed collect food from animals, without killing them, as long as they are treated humanely, foods like milk, eggs etc. So maybe, not a fruitarian, but some sort of a person who eats only what is offered without any lives of any living organisms being taken. Do you understanding what I mean?

I believe that this "frutarian" or what shall we name it, food that I mentioned is the food of future 4D positive social memory complex. They might eat some animal products, like milk and eggs, if they choose to house and take care of animals, but I doubt that this will stay with us as we are developing into the higher and higher realms of consciousness.

With this being said, we are still in 3D. Rising the consciousness of our people in regards to how we treat each other, ourselves, and our smaller siblings is a good way of polarizing, as long as one respects the free will of each, practicing an understanding. This is not to say, that sometimes one just wants to smack someone in the face and scream - what the hell is wrong with you?!

(03-18-2015, 05:52 AM)Ankh Wrote: [ -> ] I think that indeed too many of us are too numb to see the suffering of not only 2D life, but also of 3D life. Using animals for fure and testing make-up products?! Inflicting them pain because of THAT?! What the heck...

With this being said, we are still in 3D. Rising the consciousness of our people in regards to how we treat each other, ourselves, and our smaller siblings is a good way of polarizing, as long as one respects the free will of each, practicing an understanding. This is not to say, that sometimes one just wants to smack someone in the face and scream - what the hell is wrong with you?!

We sure are numb, it is such a violent , exploitive culture we live in.  From the violent movies and TV, to non-stop war, people are totally desensitized, purposely propagandized so that we remain unconscious cogs in the wheel.

Science and the truth of who we are ( one creator)are beginning to come together, so soon it will become common knowledge that we are one.  The veil has terribly distorted the truth.  I think when it comes to exploitation of animals, it is western religious beliefs that hugely distorts people's understanding. Religion is sooo ingrained, a strong chain that binds consciousness. After all, to challenge religious beliefs, it is challenging the Almighty himself, and who wants to risk burning in hell for eternity? 

Under the first distortion aren't all animals that are suffering on this sphere born here for that experience?

IMO even if mankind were to stop all this animal cruelty, the souls with this time/space desire would incarnate elsewhere to receive that experience which would not be available here anymore.

That's not how 2D works. The creatures of 2D are not evolved to the point where they choose their incarnations, they are 'guided'. 2D consciousness has not yet realized awareness of the distinction between self and other-self, so they wouldn't be able to plan for such a sophisticated experience. Rather, experience in 2D develops a creature towards awareness of self and other-self.

It is possible for creatures to have stagnant experiences, or to be caught in experiences not of their own intention. Free will means that we can also be infringed upon and what we see here on this planet is a severe case of continuous infringement.

Also, the first distortion of free will is not the same as the "law of free will/confusion".

Again, we are the guides of those lower entities and I believe that things work from the top down. Animals don't incarnate to experience suffering, that doesn't make any sense, they incarnate to progress along their evolution of consciousness. Suffering is part of living in a physical body, but there are forms of suffering which become extreme. The type of suffering that animals experience at the hand of humans is symptomatic of the way we view our own species.

So to blame animals for their experience of cruelty is victim-blaming at its most ridiculous.

I thought the first distortion transcends all that happens. In exemple the case of early worlds without free will, it was the free will of the souls to incarnate in such worlds where there was a lack of free will. So even without free will, there was free will.

I don't think free will infringement is actually possible, what looks like it is still in accordance to the first distortion and within free will. I'm not talking about a "plan", I'm talking about how the automatism of incarnation works prior to green ray activation is still part of free will. Souls incarnate where they need to within the illusion of time and space where their needed experiences will be provided.

Free will being the first distortion means it is the first law of this Universe, nothing should be able to go against it.

Also I'm not blaming animals, I'm simply stating that you can't erase sorrow from Creation.

Again, the distortion of free will is not the same as the law of confusion/free will.

Quote:Questioner: Now, I understand that the first distortion of intelligent infinity is the distortion of what we call free will. Can you give me a definition of this distortion?

Ra: I am Ra. In this distortion of the Law of One it is recognized that the Creator will know Itself.

Quote:Questioner: OK. Then I assume that the first distortion is the, shall I say, motivator or what allows this blockage. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. We wish no quibbling but prefer to avoid the use of terms such as the verb, to allow. Free will does not allow, nor would predetermination disallow, experiential distortions. Rather the Law of Confusion offers a free reach for the energies of each mind/body/spirit complex. The verb, to allow, would be considered pejorative in that it suggests a polarity between right and wrong or allowed and not allowed. This may seem a minuscule point. However, to our best way of thinking it bears some weight.

Quote:Questioner: This then being the first distortion of the Law of One, which I [am] assuming is the Law of Intelligent Infinity, from all other— correction, all other distortions which are the total experience of the creation spring from this. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is both correct and incorrect. In your illusion all experience springs from the Law of Free Will or the Way of Confusion. In another sense, which we are learning, the experiences are this distortion.

Nothing can go against it, except Free Will itself, which is where we have thus the whole manifestation of the two paths. One can use their free will in order to control the free will of another.

Also, the claim that one's actions towards other selves are not important because they "chose it" is the biggest cop out of responsibility I have ever seen.

There is no responsability or non-responsability, there is One Intelligent Infinity exploring many-ness to know Itself.

Quote:Questioner: When this Earth was second-density, how did the second-density beings on this Earth become so invested?

Ra: There was not this type of investment as spoken but the simple third-density investment which is the line of spiraling light calling distortion upward from density to density. The process takes longer when there is no investment made by incarnate third-density beings.

It is through 3D investment in 2D that 2D consciousness is accelerated and made Harvestable quicker. What do you think we are investing our animals with through cruelty?

(03-18-2015, 02:30 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Questioner: When this Earth was second-density, how did the second-density beings on this Earth become so invested?

Ra: There was not this type of investment as spoken but the simple third-density investment which is the line of spiraling light calling distortion upward from density to density. The process takes longer when there is no investment made by incarnate third-density beings.

It is through 3D investment in 2D that 2D consciousness is accelerated and made Harvestable quicker. What do you think we are investing our animals with through cruelty?

Growth toward a 3D initial negative-oriented polarization whereas love would bring an initial positive-oriented polarization.

(03-18-2015, 02:30 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]There is no responsability or non-responsability, there is One Intelligent Infinity exploring many-ness to know Itself.

Quote:Questioner: Can you tell me a little more about this honor/responsibility concept?

Ra: I am Ra. Each responsibility is an honor; each honor, a responsibility.

Quote:Questioner: Is it possible for you to use as an example our General Patton and tell me the effect that war had on him in his development?

Ra: I am Ra. This will be the last full question of this working. The one of whom you speak, known as George, was one in whom the programming of previous incarnations had created a pattern or inertia which was irresistible in its incarnation in your time/space. This entity was of a strong yellow-ray activation with frequent green-ray openings and occasional blue-ray openings. However, it did not find itself able to break the mold of previous traumatic experiences of a bellicose nature.

This entity polarized somewhat towards the positive in its incarnation due to its singleness of belief in truth and beauty. This entity was quite sensitive. It felt a great honor/duty to the preservation of that which was felt by the entity to be true, beautiful, and in need of defense. This entity perceived itself as a gallant figure. It polarized somewhat towards the negative in its lack of understanding the green ray it carried with it, rejecting the forgiveness principle which is implicit in universal love.

The sum total of this incarnation vibrationally was a slight increase in positive polarity but a decrease in harvestability due to the rejection of the Law or Way of Responsibility; that is, seeing universal love, yet still it fought on.

Basically, you're just copping out. Okay, that's fine. Seems to be the 'in' thing in spiritual seekers nowadays.

(03-18-2015, 02:33 PM)Minyatur Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-18-2015, 02:30 PM)AngelofDeath Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Questioner: When this Earth was second-density, how did the second-density beings on this Earth become so invested?

Ra: There was not this type of investment as spoken but the simple third-density investment which is the line of spiraling light calling distortion upward from density to density. The process takes longer when there is no investment made by incarnate third-density beings.

It is through 3D investment in 2D that 2D consciousness is accelerated and made Harvestable quicker. What do you think we are investing our animals with through cruelty?

Growth toward a 3D initial negative-oriented polarization whereas love would bring an initial positive-oriented polarization.

So are you then suggesting that ALL of those animals are in some way desiring to move towards negative polarization? Regardless of the fact that they are not even at the point of being conscious of polarization?

Minyatur, I'm with AngelofDeath here. Second density of this planet evolved from first density of this planet. Their incarnations are automatic at this point, and through most of third density too for this matter, until the green ray activation of the entity occurs in the space/time. In 80s when Ra talked about it, I think that I recall that they said that only 50% or something like that were of this vibration, and that is only in third density! So, my opinion is that saying that animals chose this experience is not really correct. But what do I know? It is just my understanding, that if an animal would really have a free choice, they would never choose suffering, or death before it is its time. As would a third density choose too. But there is a difference between these densities, and that is that third density is a density of choice, so it is more or less forced to choose an orientation, while animals are just required to become aware of the infinity within, i.e. become self aware. I don't think that it is required to suffer and die thousands, violent deaths for second density in order to graduate. On contrary, I believe that love and compassion are better channels for this graduation, which is what we usually invest in our pets.