I partly agree with this.
But if we act only on survival and expansion without moral reflection, we begin to resemble a virus, not in essence, but in effect.
I disagree with this part. It's overgeneralization of humanity.
The statement "we purposefully kill and hurt and step over others to get what we want", paints all humans as malicious or selfish. This ignores altruism, empathy, cooperation, and countless examples of moral progress. Even if some humans act destructively, that doesn't define humanity as a whole.
You say we "act with malice", but not all destructive actions come from malice. Much of human harm (e.g., environmental destruction, war, inequality) arises from ignorance, short-term thinking, or structural incentives, not personal hatred.
To act "with malice" implies conscious intent to do harm, which isn't always true. Intentional harm and unintended harm or mostly driven by ignorance or greed.
You say that humans have full awareness of their actions and consequences, but that's an overstatement. Many people don't fully grasp the consequences of collective or systemic actions, like pollution or global inequality. Human awareness is limited and often distorted by bias, emotion, and misinformation. We can be aware, yet often choose not to be, because self-interest overrides reflection.
The statement draws a sharp line: viruses act for survival, humans act for ruin. But much of human harm is also tied to survival instincts, competition for resources, security, and social status.
