Although I thought your essay was a little wordy, I thought you made so many good points:
"The point is that entities are "gaps" in the scheme of things"
"nothing can serve as the unit for describing all the gamut of observables known to man quite as accurately as man himself"
"at the most rigorous level man is its very own uncertainty/principle"
"This selfishness seems to mark humanity out from much of the observable world; man wants not just to steer itself but the entirety of nature."
"what is a virtual entity doing in an a science that prides itself on being falsifiable?"
"So what happens if by some strange twist ideal man is actually the natural unit of action? My guess is that we are humbled, we will tend to want to conserve nature; for then it gets too clear and demonstrable that the first casualty in any of nature's imbalance is us."
"Must we always want to manipulate or "steer" nature or shall we at some point learn to willingly give in to nature against our own personal (local) interest? Shall we always search for a cure to some yet incurable disease or shall we rather not cure but seek to change our life style? These are sad questions; they are not about humanity's interest per se, they are about nature as some indivisible whole i.e. some "charge conservation law". In this scheme nature determines whose ox gets gored. Or does it? Man wants to pretend that nature does not lord over him but nature does one way or the other, sooner than later."
"Humanity does need to really technically appreciate the "self" as a valid state of nature."
"I see a situation where the laws of nations, states and communities are organic (forecast and then endured as are weather conditions and hurricanes today. No more rain making!) Men making laws for men should be looked upon much later in our civilization with disdain. Nations will forecast (seek) their laws not make them."
Well done, and very relevant.