I don't know if my account is "open ended." Remember, this is just one article out of hundreds of interconnected ones I've written. I don't try to answer everything all at once.
That's an interesting analysis you've provided. I'm not so sure, though, that "Nature changes nurture knowledge, never vice-versa." The Anthropocene would seem to indicate that we can change nature. Indeed, that's the presupposition of civilizational progress, that we can carve out a refuge and build an artificial alternative that tames the wilderness.
Is that humanistic pride "bogus"? Maybe, but more likely because our effect on nature is short-lived rather than being unreal.
Why is it called "Open Knowledge Epistemology"? What's open about it? "Knowledge Epistemology" seems redundant since epistemology is the study of knowledge.
https://medium.com/@benjamincain8/a-trove-of-my-philosophical-writings-2ab1bc5fe64c