Why do you think it's helpful to use language infused with intentionality and emotional intensity when describing a collective phenomenon?

It's not like Modernity can be ashamed of itself.

Meanwhile, you cannot help but deliver very negative implications towards scientists--especially when you actually refer to scientists (for instance, "scientists discover that all of nature is our perfect slave")--with this approach. And that would be fine, except you don't support your claims.

That's why, for instance, I posted the survey of correlation between scientific knowledge and concern about the environment. These days--not in the 1950s--the people who are interested in and care about science are also (more likely to be) the ones who think we need to be caretakers, not slavemasters.

It's like claiming that Nursing as an institution has as its purpose to ogle the Sick and Infirm.

Now, if you were going to argue that people use the power gained by the knowledge gained by science to abuse nature--well, that's true, and hardly a new message. But that's not what you've been talking about.

Fundamentally, your thesis revolves around a false premise that you cannot understand the mechanism of a thing without willing to enslave the thing. This is false: you might want to understand so you can impose your will, but you might also want to understand just because you're curious, or because you want to help but you don't know how.