Not the GP, but I'd say humans are not meant to be cooped up in these piles of boxes we call "cities".
I've lived in both rural and urban areas, and strongly prefer the former; the latter may be more "efficient" mathematically, but at the cost of a substantially-worse quality of life in my opinion.
I grew up in a rural area and now live in one of the most densely populated neighbourhoods of the most densely populated cities in earth. I strongly prefer the latter even though I still love visiting nature for relaxation. You know what runs the countryside? All the people who built houses there.
> You know what runs the countryside? All the people who built houses there.
There's a difference between "countryside" and "wilderness". I think you're talking about "wilderness", because "countryside" is kinda defined by agricultural use (which traditionally implies people living on their farms/ranches). Houses and barns are - IMO - understandably okay in a countryside. Wilderness, not so much; I agree with you 100% that it's better to not actually live in places that we should be conserving for future generations (or at least not build permanent structures; camping is fine, IMO).
Regardless, you don't have to stick to the extremes. Smaller cities/towns that allow for close proximity to either countryside or wilderness (or both!) without outright sprawling onto it would give you the benefits of both. Reno, NV is a perfect example of this: urban living in the valley, surrounded by mountains and deserts where it's easy enough to entirely avoid civilization if you so choose.
All those farms have the potential to become wilderness with urban farming, lab meat etc. In Ireland there is a 3rd type of rural where every man and his dog has built an eyesore of a house on their carefully manicured 1 - 5 acres of land. You can pretty much drive the country long and wide and never not be able to see a house like this (except in the designated nature reserves).
I'm ok with smaller towns and cities as long as they are very high density. They tend to sprawl however.
When these things become practical and ubiquitous and cheap, then sure, farmland could become wilderness again.
> Ireland
That kinda explains our differences in opinion, then. The US is a lot bigger and roomier, so more space to spread out beyond the small 1-5 acre plots (you do see them still - I grew up on an 8-acre ranch - but they're typically surrounded by plenty of more open fields, albeit typically fenced).
> [smaller towns and cities] tend to sprawl, however
Only if allowed to do so, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case. We could be surrounding those towns with protected wilderness, for example. Reno's an example where the very geography makes significant sprawl less practical (though it's still happening in the north and south to an extent).
Also, one thing that often slows the sprawl is the sheer cost of extending utilities further and further from the population center (and that cost - at least here in the US - is the responsibility of the property owner). Even building your own self-sufficient alternatives (wells and septic tanks and solar panels and such) is expensive enough to be at least somewhat of a deterrent (if they're even practical in a given climate). When these towns do sprawl, it tends to be along roads that already have power lines.
I've lived in both rural and urban areas, and strongly prefer the former; the latter may be more "efficient" mathematically, but at the cost of a substantially-worse quality of life in my opinion.