OT, you say that in real life "we don't SEE what we are doing". If we don't see what we are doing than how can we, or in this case you, know what it is? I say "you" because I certainly would never claim to know what humanity, as a species, is doing in the larger scheme of things or attempt to pass any qualitative judgment upon it. Please do not be offended if this sounds insulting: I would genuinely like an answer to this question but, regretably, cannot think how to phrase it more politely.
You also point out that we feel greater empathy for other humans than we do for any other living creature. I would say that this is certainly true, but I also feel that it is not something which can be changed or which has any definite moral implication, but rather something which is natural to any form of consciousness. I doubt that I, or any other person, could really understand a tree, or even something like a monkey, which is more closely related to us, because, as you said, "we are not like them". What you seem to gloss over, however, is that they are equally unlike eachother. We are not the sole purveyors of evil in this world, but rather partly evil inhabitants in a partly evil world. By this I mean that there is evil in everything and that nothing can be done to change that. Nothing without evil in it can exist in such a universe. In the end, all we can do is remain conscious of the evil around us and the evil we commit.
Additionally, several posters in this topic have compared humanity to a disease or to a cancer. I would first like to point out that most diseases, like humanity and unlike a cancer, are comprised of living organism which, like all life forms, survive and multiply by consuming their environment. A cancer, on the other hand, is a destructive and uncontrolled growth within an organism made up of that organisms cells. In this comparison, humanity would be a part of nature destroying the rest by its uncontrolled expansion, which is possible although I believe nature as a whole to be far more resilient and adaptable than that. In any case, I don't believe that humans are any different from other forms of life in regard to the actions which prompt such comparisons, we merely understand our own actions better than we understand those of other species and chose to regard ourselves as seperate from the rest of the natural world of which we are a part. I therefore feel that such comparisons fall somewhat short of the system at work, although I must confess that in the absence of absolute perception I see no way to grasp it full scope and proccess. Based on what I do know, an oruboros might be a better metaphor for life.
On the subject of Avatar, I minded the actual plot much less than the one-note characters and found that, while the effects were wonderfully executed, the actual design of the film's world was rather uninspired and poorly thought-out. It was not a particularly bad film, but I feel that it could have been an awful lot better.
Also, Internet Kraken, how do you know what parasites are aware of or care about? I don't neccessarily disagree with you, I just wondered if you have a source or are just guessing. I would also like to ask the people you responded to with that comment what, exactly, humanity is supposed to be parasitic TO. We can't be parasitic to nature, unless we came from another planet or something, because we're part of nature, and we don't seem to be parasitic to any specific other life form, either. Are we supposed to be parasitic to the planet itself? Is it even possible to be parasitic to a giant ball of rock? And, if it is possible, wouldn't that make all life parasytes?
