Gladness might be a good compromise. We evolved a way of modeling nature, but not the scientific mode of objectification. We evolved no such dehumanizing, humiliating perspective, so scientific culture is alienating, whereas the formative, animistic outlook of prehistoric times personified nature. Science depersonalizes nature.

Those necessities I posited were supposed to be analytical. I'm trying to analyze the naturalistic upshot of the scientific world picture. The disappointment with nature's impersonality, then, is due to the conflict between modern, scientific knowledge and our socializing intuitions and instincts. Likewise, our pragmatic aim of exploiting natural resources runs up against disgust for the alienness of natural processes.

You can say that gladness makes for a counterexample, so there's no such necessity. A naturalist can feel glad instead of wanting to be grateful. I think, then, the analysis could be reformulated to counter gladness with other existential concerns, such as angst, horror, disgust, awe, and so on. Those existential reactions would arise from the conflict between the scientific or cosmic perspective, and the folk conditions of the lifeworld (the intuitions and skills we need to socialize and be happy).