I understand your objection. You're saying my language is inflammatory and offensive, especially since scientists are typically liberal conservationists rather than rabid imperialists.

I use strong language, though, to express my vision of the world and to shake folks out of their stupor, to get them to ask questions about things they take for granted.

Our personal feelings are often irrelevant to the social roles we occupy. My contention here is that science as an institution plays a key role in the modern ravaging of the planet. And I'm ambivalent about our antipathy to nature. So no, it's not just that science neutrally discovers some facts, and then the rest of society uses that knowledge for sinister purposes. Science as a whole isn't so neutral since it's part of modern society. Science is like fuel for a car; you can't drive without it.

And you've mischaracterized my argument when you say it's about "understanding." On the contrary, it's about objectivity, which I construe as objectification. I've written elsewhere about the more general concept of understanding. Scientists don't just understand the world; their methods end up objectifying/naturalizing it. I'm trying to understand the relation between science and nature, and I do so by disregarding the hype and looking at the systematic effects of the engagement.