Was Evil invented by mistake ?

[flofrog]

Humm, maybe it's not even a question of sharing opinions, but a question of caring about how it is received ?  If I did not worry about how it will be received (judged), I would find no issues at all with sharing?

Lol I wonder Patrick, if you shouldn’t give yourself a break ? Admitting just that you are quite ok, quite fine, and there’s perhaps little chance to be badly received ?

And, if badly received, perhaps simply misunderstood by that person, so it’s really not on your path ?

[Aion]

Ain't none of us "evolved" here, whatever that means, just a bunch of wanderers in the dark asking questions and trying to find a touchstone.
I shoot an arrow in to the dark, I certainly do not expect everyone to head in that direction and I hope people don't take it that way.

I think there is a distinction to be made in the "world is a mirror" school of thought as that doesn't always take the same form.
In one sense of it I think the idea is usually presented in terms of manifestation or someone "creating their own reality" or in some way creating all of reality. So the idea that the world is a reflection of what is going on inside of you personally, and this to me is a little overblown, I don't really follow that.

Rather my thought is more on the other side of what a "mirror" actually is. That is to say, the world acting as a mirror is a way in which to see yourself reflected. Thus by observing different things in the world you are able to connect with those ideas within yourself, so you are able to see your own reflection. This is considerably different from the idea that "what you see is your creation".

I think our world is co-created, there are tons of different interactions going on both positive and negative, free will being infringed or respected, and by all means there are plenty of behaviours that I do not "approve" of, even if I accept them.

However, that is a totally different aspect of study from gaining self-knowledge, (or is it?) and that is what the idea of using the world as a mirror is for in my opinion. So when I say to find the world reflected in yourself it has nothing to do with taking responsibility for its existence or that its not real, it's entirely a matter of getting in touch with your own dualistic nature by exposure to catalyst.

I generally urge people to move in to their uncomfortable zones because those areas are where I usually feel more self-awareness can be gleaned. That is not intended to suggest that one should be constantly making themselves uncomfortable, it's more like pointing in the dark, "have you checked out what's over there?"

The process means going back and forth between the light and dark, you delve in to the dark to reveal the unknown but then it must be brought in to the light to do so.

At least, that is how it seems to me. It is likely very different for others.

I do not promote solipsism, lol.

That being said, I definitely promote "don't care what other people think of you", it is literally impossible to please everyone, people will make up their own stuff and their own stories, it's not something you can control.

I know I probably come across as a know-it-all for a lot of people because of the way I speak my opinions, but I'm really more of an agnostic, I don't really set believe anything I just have my current working hypothesis and an appetite for inquisition. People seem to take it that when you say something that you are like wholely committed, but my style is more like wing chun, rarely am I committed to any statement, rather I'm always looking for where it might flow next and the ideas that come from inquiry.

Honestly, I think we all need a bit of brain numbing from time to time.

[Aion]

Here's another good one I forgot:

54.13 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.

[David_1]

   Patrick asked, “OR am I supposed to DO something in order to help?”  Isn’t it a wee bit of the question of life?  What is my purpose?
   I think the answer can be found in each of us by asking, “What kind of an individual am I?”
   Consider a situation.  Suppose I am on a walk and come upon someone lying on the sidewalk bleeding, who apparently has been beaten.  Would I walk on, or would I “Do something?”

[Diana]

@ Aion: I don't disagree with anything you said in your last post. 

I definitely agree that everything that comes to our attention is something to be looked at. The whole mirroring thing, for me, becomes a little too cavalier at times, and sometimes derives I feel from lack of consideration and thought. I will admit that some of my attitude on this goes back to the 90s when I was interacting with various New Agers who bandied about certain phrases with no substance or comprehension (in my opinion).

I like to come to any subject with an empty cup (another martial arts axiom), in other words, no beliefs or systems in place to interfere with new information. So I think it's perfectly legitimate to question everything, to make my own discernments based on my own thinking. I happen to resonate with the Ra Material; perhaps not all of it but most of it in general. But it doesn't follow then that I just give up my own thinking and follow every last word of Ra. So I would say that this aligns with the idea of mirroring, whereby certain information is mirrored or you magnetize it to yourself, but after that, you apply it to your own life and context of existence, and still, there is always more to grasp; so in the bigger picture you don't want to be stagnant wallowing in the same still waters (information or beliefs) but flow with the currents that are open to gathering more information (or awareness). Perhaps this is what you mean by flow, and if so, we are on the same page here.

One of the problems I have with the mirroring response is that it effectively stops conversation. As a person who is alone A LOT, (I have worked alone at home for decades—and prefer it), I find it is very efficacious at times to get out of my head and say my thoughts out loud or some other way such as typing them; and in doing so, it sometimes helps to clarify or rearrange them in a revelatory fashion. Saying I am mirroring puts me right back in my head. And some subjects don't fit, such as talking about whether one agrees with the "words" of Ra and how one feels about the veil. Ra is not infallible (and the fact that though unconsciously channeled, the information did come through a third party), nor do we even know absolutely that Ra exists or existed. So to say that my doubt, if you want to call it that, is a mirror for me, well I suppose it is, but so what? I don't just do what any so-called authority tells me to do, and I will make up my own mind. So what is the mirror then? That I won't follow instructions from some other authority than my own? Now we have bypassed whatever it was in my head that I wanted to discuss (such as the veil), because I am supposed to get back in my head and figure out what is being mirrored. And so we see how convoluted the mirroring thing can get, if we just say to everybody that whatever it is they are thinking, seeing, having a problem with, is mirroring.

Okay, so enough with my diatribe on mirroring.  

In any case, I do like discussing and debating and revealing new thought through interaction with others who think differently than me but who are interested in similar things. 

 

[Aion]

Well, it does seem your past experiences have coloured the notion greatly for you and it appears difficult to separate my perspective from that colouring, but I get where you are coming from for sure.

It certainly shouldn't be any stop to conversation in my mind, if anything I would think it would lead to more engagement as internal content is brought out, but it seems that for most people the idea is just about solipsism.

The first way you describe it is more in line with my views.
The second way you've described it here is very different from my own thoughts. So like saying "my doubt is a mirror for me" but that doesn't make any sense in my mind.
The doubt is something you're already in connection with and you likely know many of the reasons for it. If you were to see this "mirrored" in the world, you might encounter individuals or situations in which doubt plays a large role and this may alert you to similar feelings that you may not be aware of.

However, since you're already fairly in touch with these things, mostly likely you do not need such a mirror to discover it and so the concept is moot.
Like, if you look in the mirror every day at your face, odds are you are pretty familiar with your face. The key is to use the mirror to try and see reflections that you do not normally see.

The world as a mirror is for discovering the unknown, not beating dead horses.

[Aion]

I think this is one of those cases where a concept or phrase becomes meaningless with overt, imprecise use, and I think for myself I often lean more towards clarifying a concept rather than simply doing away with it. There needs to be a conversation on what the phrase even means before it can be useful for conversation, and hence where our wires have crossed.

I think largely we are on the same page though.

[Minyatur]

Outside of evil, a lot in this thread is about suffering, but it is not like humans created suffering nor did the veil put it in place. Suffering is its own part of nature, remove all of humanity and 3D experience from Earth and you will still have animals that hunt other animals, hurt meaninglessly other animals, have accidents and became stranded to die alone, perhaps of a fever or lack of food. Humans are a whole lot in the image of the nature from which they come, simply wielding a different level of power and without natural predators to balance them out on the short term. Then again, the entire idea of 3D is to allow a place for the Creator to have the honor/duty to learn as this role within such a planet, to make its mistakes and grow through them in the eternal discovery of the Creator as the Creator.

*sigh*

This bypasses any responsibility or accountability on the part of humans. Of course humans have created certain kinds of suffering. If they didn't, who did? Some other entity? Or maybe it just popped out of nowhere. 

Yes, nature is cruel, or more accurately, neutral. Nature is just the system, as the veil is our system. Yes animals may suffer in the ways you have mentioned, but how does that compare to the intentional suffering animals are put through in laboratories when they are experimented on? Are not humans responsible for that suffering?

This part was a bit about suffering having its own place beyond humans, both within and without the confines of this Octave.

The part where I did not bypass the responsibility and accountability of humans in regard to what they do is when I spoke of their honor/duty to learn from their mistakes. Now it may sound harsh to say that they have the right to make their mistakes, but it is in fact realistic as it is what is happening. Mankind is just one of the many animals of this world, one difference being that we have attained the ability of self-reflection as a specie. This though implies nothing beyond that it is now part of our natural process of evolution and that it is currently at play. Over time mankind will change because of it, as it already has, but it is a slow process of distilling the self individually and collectively that brings about this change. It is not something that can be rushed and the current state of mankind will not be overcome either, instead it needs to be understood and accepted before we can turn to newer ways. Currently mankind is still very close to the nature from which it comes from and a lot of our ways are derived or inspired from it. I would not be surprised at all that we would have never turned carnivorous if we had never seen beasts hunt. So in a way, this 3D process of evolution is not just about humans as a separate specie and instead more about that humans incarnate the dimension in which nature processes itself at that level. Both within and without mankind, it is the same nature that exists and the path of acceptance to me is really about seeing both reflected in one another. To me it is untrue to think that you can disapprove of things that mankind does and accept it as part of nature outside humans, just like it is untrue to think that you can disapprove of things that are done in nature and accept it as part of mankind. I guess that's really just the good old 'All is one' and I do not know what salvation there is for someone that thinks existence is wrong to be what it is. I don't think I can really judge another human for what it does any more than I can judge a wolf for what it is does, even with the power of 3D thinking the wolf might just think that it likes to hunt, just as the taste of blood, and keep at it. Each thing does what it is in its nature as a complex to do and it makes more sense for me to understand and accept that than to seek to control it.

Can we change nature? Unlikely. Can we change humanity's cruelty to other life forms through awareness and evolution of consciousness? Yes (I certainly hope so).

To me it is somewhat the same and in both scenarios it is about which of the two paths will be taken, will it be through acceptance or control?

[Black Dragon]

Animals view all as the self, since in second-density they have not individuated or become self-aware as self and other-self yet.
This sense of "us and them" is not there, when an interaction happens, it is all part of the ecosystem.

19.15 Questioner: Then the newest third-density beings who’ve just made the transition from second are still strongly biased towards self-service. There must be many other mechanisms to create an awareness of the possibility of service to others.
I am wondering, first— two things. I’m wondering about the mechanism and I am wondering when the split takes place where the entity is able to continue on the road towards service to self that will eventually take him to fourth or fifth density.
I would assume that an entity can continue— can start, say, in second density with service totally to self and continue right on through and just stay on what we would call the path of service to self and never ever be pulled over. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The second-density concept of serving self includes the serving of those associated with tribe or pack. This is not seen in second density as separation of self and other-self. All is seen as self since in some forms of second-density entities, if the tribe or pack becomes weakened, so does the entity within the tribe or pack.

The new or initial third-density entity has this innocent, shall we say, bias or distortion towards viewing those in the family, the society, as you would call, perhaps, country, as self. Thus though a distortion not helpful for progress in third density, it is without polarity.

The break becomes apparent when the entity perceives other-selves as other-selves and consciously determines to manipulate other-selves for the benefit of the self. This is the beginning of the road of which you speak.

20.4 Questioner: Then can you give me an example of an entity in third density that was just previously a second-density entity? What type of entity do they become here?

Ra: I am Ra. As a second-density entity returns as third-density for the beginning of this process of learning, the entity is equipped with the lowest, if you will so call these vibrational distortions, forms of third-density consciousness; that is, equipped with self-consciousness.

21.9 Questioner: Now, when the 75,000-year cycle started, [the] life span was approximately nine hundred years, average. What was the process and scheduling of— mechanism, shall I say, of reincarnation at that time, and how did the time in between incarnations into third-density physical apply to the growth of the mind/body/spirit complex?

Ra: I am Ra. This query is more complex than most. We shall begin. The incarnation pattern of the beginning third-density mind/body/spirit complex begins in darkness, for you may think or consider of your density as one of, as you may say, a sleep and a forgetting. This is the only plane of forgetting. It is necessary for the third-density entity to forget so that the mechanisms of confusion or free will may operate upon the newly individuated consciousness complex.

Thus, the beginning entity is one in all innocence oriented towards animalistic behavior using other-selves only as extensions of self for the preservation of the all-self. The entity becomes slowly aware that it has needs, shall we say, that are not animalistic; that is, that are useless for survival. These needs include: the need for companionship, the need for laughter, the need for beauty, the need to know the universe about it. These are the beginning needs.

As the incarnations begin to accumulate, further needs are discovered: the need to trade, the need to love, the need to be loved, the need to elevate animalistic behaviors to a more universal perspective.

During the first portion of third-density cycles, incarnations are automatic and occur rapidly upon the cessation of energy complex of the physical vehicle. There is small need to review or to heal the experiences of the incarnation. As, what you would call, the energy centers begin to be activated to a higher extent, more of the content of experience during incarnation deals with the lessons of love.

Thus the time, as you may understand it, between incarnations is lengthened to give appropriate attention to the review and the healing of experiences of the previous incarnation. At some point in third density, the green-ray energy center becomes activated and at that point incarnation ceases to be automatic.

The reason I have a hard time believing that nature has ever not been eating itself (cause really, most of the violence in nature revolves around food and survival) is because this even occurs on a microorganism level which were the first lifeforms to form on the planet. Even plants compete with eachother and can be aggressive towards eachother for the sake of survival.

Perhaps we are idealizing a nature in which there is never any competition?

I think maybe such a nature should be idealized. When you look at a symbiotic relationship vs a competitive one, the symbiotic one is much more efficient, and doesn't create the entropy or suffering of the predatory/competitive relationship. When you look at the concept of zero point energy vs the concept of systems that need to consume some sort of fuel, they are again, much more efficient, and they are much more powerful. Predation, competition, and entropy are both inefficient, and create misery as a biproduct in 3d and higher/more aware 2d life. Maybe there needs to be some of this drag and adversity as catalyst for change, but it shouldn't be as oppressive and all-pervasive as it is, and ideally, its certainly the less beautiful, less efficient paradigm.

That being said, I personally enjoy a little optional competition. There's nothing wrong with video games, martial arts sparring, sports, card games, and many activities that are voluntary forms of competition that provide mutual growth and enjoyment of a hobby. Those things can spice up life and provide growth, catalyst, and more appreciation and interaction with others. We should not have to compete just for the basics of survival, such as food, water, shelter, and health necessities. Maybe the 2d life forms on our planet are set up that way, maybe by original design, maybe by tampering, but they have a certain integrity when playing out that competitive nature in that they don't hate or take things personally, they just do what's necessary to survive by their design over which they don't have a choice.

3d is different, we have a choice. We largely design ourselves. He choose our own trajectory and ways of doing things, and to me, it's stupid to model ourselves after a competitive predator/prey paradigm when we can choose a superior symbiotic model that's more beautiful, more efficient, more powerful, and more full of joy rather than misery.

[Aion]

I would say it is debatable that everyone consciously chooses and designs themselves actively in 3D, however as you say, we have a choice in how we choose to live, that is the essential crux that I am always trying to get at as well.

On the one hand it is saying "look, this is nature as it is" and on the other saying "but what of it?"

Rather like artists these observations we make in the world serve as the materials to be rearranged in to a new, more balanced design.

I agree that things can and should be shaped and changed and observing the manners in which it is imbalanced is critical to this process.
However, I think that you can only move forward from where you are and taking in your surroundings isn't a bad idea, even if you intend to journey out of them.

That being said, is it not ironic that through discussion we have many perspectives crossing and exchanging, yet we are all in the same overall environment? Consciousness is a weird thing.

[Black Dragon]

[quote='Minyatur' pid='281821' dateline='1599509331']

Outside of evil, a lot in this thread is about suffering, but it is not like humans created suffering nor did the veil put it in place. Suffering is its own part of nature, remove all of humanity and 3D experience from Earth and you will still have animals that hunt other animals, hurt meaninglessly other animals, have accidents and became stranded to die alone, perhaps of a fever or lack of food. Humans are a whole lot in the image of the nature from which they come, simply wielding a different level of power and without natural predators to balance them out on the short term. Then again, the entire idea of 3D is to allow a place for the Creator to have the honor/duty to learn as this role within such a planet, to make its mistakes and grow through them in the eternal discovery of the Creator as the Creator.

I guess that's really just the good old 'All is one' and I do not know what salvation there is for someone that thinks existence is wrong to be what it is. I don't think I can really judge another human for what it does any more than I can judge a wolf for what it is does, even with the power of 3D thinking the wolf might just think that it likes to hunt, just as the taste of blood, and keep at it. Each thing does what it is in its nature as a complex to do and it makes more sense for me to understand and accept that than to seek to control it.

To a certain extent I see the validity in your statements. Perhaps I can provide a flipside, or alternative viewpoint, and whether right or wrong, at least get you to see how that viewpoint might be validated. Is a person a bad gamer if they point out what they feel is wrong or unbalanced with a game's design, in hopes the developers might take heed and make the game a better experience for those that play it? There's a quote in the material that the creator prefers honest dialogue, even railing against it, that it might hear our honest and heartfelt opinions about existence from our perspective. I'd say that there's more hope of salvation for a person that sticks to their heartfelt principles in misguided rebellion against the perceived nature of existence, then for one who blindly accepts the apparent "authority" of that existence as automatically superior and superseding to their heartfelt beliefs and values.

Everything in balance can be good or bad, to an extent. There is a dark side to acceptance, and you can see it in our history in the holocaust in situations when tons of people were marched to their deaths at gunpoint by relatively few armed guards that could have been physically overpowered with much fewer casualties. If wanderers and those of an STO bent were 100% accepting and 0% controlling at all times, than they would be 100% impotent and never accomplish anything. "when push comes to shove, sometimes shove must push back". That's in the material too alongside all the flowery acceptance stuff.

One more thing. People who can't understand why someone could possibly think "existence is wrong to be what it is", are either full of s*** and haven't suffered anything intense enough to come to that conclusions/distortion, or they have and made it past the dark night of the soul and shadow integration and really come out the other side, in which case they would at least be able to understand and empathize, even if they did not share the same view. As very few people fall into the latter category, people making the type of statements that you make usually fall into the first. In that case, they are somewhat akin to people who judge others who are relatively well off materially, and say "your life is easy", when they have no fucking clue what hardships that person actually faces.

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that you are of the latter group, that's actually been through some real stuff and transcended it. In that case, your perspective is much valued. If you self-examine and find yourself belonging to the first group, I'd personally shut the hell up and not condescend people for disagreeing with the nature of existence until you actually learn how bad it can be.

[Black Dragon]

removed duplicate

[Black Dragon]

removed duplicate

[Patrick]

Yeah well I believe that if anyone wants to vote on this matter of the ridiculously heavy veil, it can only be done while here. Otherwise on the other side I suspect we are all just glad for the great game.

[Ymarsakar]

 
Is it possible that animals did not attack other animals before this planet was influenced negatively by us ?  Or maybe Orion was even influencing second density on this planet before 3D began ?

Yes, in the Eden era, the lamb lay down with the lion. They didn't need to eat much of anything. The world was not influenced by humans to do that. That is a distortion. What happened is that Earth became infused with both Heyl-El serpent like genetics, or STS, and also STO genetics. Of the original divine dna, humanity knows it as junk DNA. 20%, mostly suppressed. 80% of the active genetics is Orion/Draconian.

The plant and animal life here were "imported" from previous worlds dominated or destroyed by Orion influences.

[Patrick]

 
Is it possible that animals did not attack other animals before this planet was influenced negatively by us ?  Or maybe Orion was even influencing second density on this planet before 3D began ?

Yes, in the Eden era, the lamb lay down with the lion. They didn't need to eat much of anything. The world was not influenced by humans to do that. That is a distortion. What happened is that Earth became infused with both Heyl-El serpent like genetics, or STS, and also STO genetics. Of the original divine dna, humanity knows it as junk DNA. 20%, mostly suppressed. 80% of the active genetics is Orion/Draconian.

The plant and animal life here were "imported" from previous worlds dominated or destroyed by Orion influences.

Interesting, that resonates a bit.

[Diana]

To a certain extent I see the validity in your statements. Perhaps I can provide a flipside, or alternative viewpoint, and whether right or wrong, at least get you to see how that viewpoint might be validated. Is a person a bad gamer if they point out what they feel is wrong or unbalanced with a game's design, in hopes the developers might take heed and make the game a better experience for those that play it? There's a quote in the material that the creator prefers honest dialogue, even railing against it, that it might hear our honest and heartfelt opinions about existence from our perspective. I'd say that there's more hope of salvation for a person that sticks to their heartfelt principles in misguided rebellion against the perceived nature of existence, then for one who blindly accepts the apparent "authority" of that existence as automatically superior and superseding to their heartfelt beliefs and values.

I so agree.

Everything in balance can be good or bad, to an extent. There is a dark side to acceptance, and you can see it in our history in the holocaust in situations when tons of people were marched to their deaths at gunpoint by relatively few armed guards that could have been physically overpowered with much fewer casualties. If wanderers and those of an STO bent were 100% accepting and 0% controlling at all times, than they would be 100% impotent and never accomplish anything. "when push comes to shove, sometimes shove must push back". That's in the material too alongside all the flowery acceptance stuff.

One more thing. People who can't understand why someone could possibly think "existence is wrong to be what it is", are either full of s*** and haven't suffered anything intense enough to come to that conclusions/distortion, or they have and made it past the dark night of the soul and shadow integration and really come out the other side, in which case they would at least be able to understand and empathize, even if they did not share the same view. As very few people fall into the latter category, people making the type of statements that you make usually fall into the first. In that case, they are somewhat akin to people who judge others who are relatively well off materially, and say "your life is easy", when they have no fucking clue what hardships that person actually faces.

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume that you are of the latter group, that's actually been through some real stuff and transcended it. In that case, your perspective is much valued. If you self-examine and find yourself belonging to the first group, I'd personally shut the hell up and not condescend people for disagreeing with the nature of existence until you actually learn how bad it can be.

Well said.

Although, I wouldn't want anyone to shut up—just to consider other viewpoints.

[Diana]

 
Is it possible that animals did not attack other animals before this planet was influenced negatively by us ?  Or maybe Orion was even influencing second density on this planet before 3D began ?

Yes, in the Eden era, the lamb lay down with the lion. They didn't need to eat much of anything. The world was not influenced by humans to do that. That is a distortion. What happened is that Earth became infused with both Heyl-El serpent like genetics, or STS, and also STO genetics. Of the original divine dna, humanity knows it as junk DNA. 20%, mostly suppressed. 80% of the active genetics is Orion/Draconian.

The plant and animal life here were "imported" from previous worlds dominated or destroyed by Orion influences.

Interesting, that resonates a bit.

I like this thought, as it widens the circle.

And Patrick, I keep wanting to say that your signature is hilarious. It always makes me laugh.

[Patrick]

...
And Patrick, I keep wanting to say that your signature is hilarious. It always makes me laugh.

Well if any programmers wants to know more about the ØMQ protocol, that quote came from here: http://zguide.zeromq.org/pdf-hx:chapter2

And there is this also at the same place.  They're having a little fun with documenting their stuff.

It turns "Message Oriented Middleware", a phrase guaranteed to send the whole room off to Catatonia, into "Extra Spicy Sockets!" which leaves us with a strange craving for pizza, and a desire to know more.

 

[Aion]

 
Is it possible that animals did not attack other animals before this planet was influenced negatively by us ?  Or maybe Orion was even influencing second density on this planet before 3D began ?

Yes, in the Eden era, the lamb lay down with the lion. They didn't need to eat much of anything. The world was not influenced by humans to do that. That is a distortion. What happened is that Earth became infused with both Heyl-El serpent like genetics, or STS, and also STO genetics. Of the original divine dna, humanity knows it as junk DNA. 20%, mostly suppressed. 80% of the active genetics is Orion/Draconian.

The plant and animal life here were "imported" from previous worlds dominated or destroyed by Orion influences.

We've been trying to sort out the mess ever since, really.

[Patrick]

That might be why we often hear that this planet is a biological library.  Having species lost in time from other planets.

Now with it going to 4D, we will be able to take good care of it all.  I wonder how going 4D positive will benefit 2D?  I guess just not having 3D humans will help, but maybe predation will slowly go away with time as well.

[Ymarsakar]

That might be why we often hear that this planet is a biological library.  Having species lost in time from other planets.

Now with it going to 4D, we will be able to take good care of it all.  I wonder how going 4D positive will benefit 2D?  I guess just not having 3D humans will help, but maybe predation will slowly go away with time as well.

2nd density will be uplifted faster. They will have less trauma to go through.

Example would be dolphins. They volunteered. A lot of them were very high iq atlantean seekers and adepts.

Human relationship with dolphins while not ideal, is much better than hunting down whales for oil.