My point is that nature's impersonality is bound to alienate animals that prefer to socialize and that can understand this objective reality of nature.

I agree that we use scientific knowledge to make our life easier. We cope with nature's monstrousness by building artificial, anti-natural alternatives (civilizations, cultures, etc). Thus, we can ignore the wilderness and preoccupy ourselves with "First World problems." But there's a difference between ignoring a reality and denying the reality's there.

Are you denying that scientific objectivity entails that nature is impersonal, amoral, and thus inhuman? And are you denying that social creatures are likely to find such a world off-putting when they stop and think about it?