[Excerpt from TT: 2009-10-11]
[Question] One wonders whether animals are happy in zoos, but on the other hand zoos are nowadays helping to save threatened species. Does the positive outweigh the negative?
[Michael Entity] On a small scale, there are a number of zoos where the impact is for preservation, sanctuary, and rehabilitation, and these zoos are fairly clear and open in that agenda. We see most animals in that scenario to find value in the experience as this contributes to their own evolution of consciousness. Anytime animals can be in close proximity to Sentience while capable of maintaining their own level of capacity for choice, much is gained. However, most zoos do not share this agenda, and simply exist as a business for generating city or personal revenue, contributing to the unnecessary confinement, capture, and harm of those animals involved. We cannot say that the positive outweighs the negative, but we can say that if one is concerned, it is usually obvious which zoos are sanctuaries, and which are businesses.
[Question] So one can visit a sanctuary zoo with a clear conscience?
[Michael Entity] That would be a question only you could answer. We know that many can visit the most harmful of zoos and still have a “clear conscience,” while others can visit the most beneficial of zoos, and leave feeling a deep guilt or sorrow. However, we can say that if one’s concern is the comparison between benefit vs destruction, then those zoos focused on sanctuary, etc, may be more comfortable for the compassionate Personality. Compassion and consciousness grow parallel to one another, and are often linked with sensitivity. If one’s consciousness and compassion has evolved to a point where these questions are important, and one feels that the participation in one zoo contributes to one’s idea of good work, over the work of another, then the choice may be an easy one for that individual. For another fragment who is not emphasizing broad compassion and consciousness, then the choice may simply be as to which one would bring more personal joy or entertainment.
We wish to point out that we see all choices as valid, but in terms of contributing to the choices available to non-sentient species vs the reduction of choice for that species, we do see this concern as growing parallel to ones evolution of consciousness. For instance, one can easily remove the choice of a fellow Sentient fragment through murder in earlier lifetimes, but this eventually falls away as a solution as consciousness evolves. The same concern begins to extend to other species as that evolution continues.
This is not to say that an Old Soul will not, or cannot, murder, or that an Infant or Baby soul does not have compassion and concern for other species, but that the progression is fairly consistent in terms of your question becoming an important to the fragment.