> There are a lot more factors to the equation than farming space

Yes, but agricultural footprint is the dominating factor.

> And what do you think was there before the farms?

Nature, to my point. Recall that you're the one arguing that suburbs rather than agriculture is threatening nature:

> The enemy of wilderness is not urbanists, it’s suburban sprawl.

> Yes, but agricultural footprint is the dominating factor.

Perhaps, but you also need to consider:

- transport to work / school / hospitals / entertainment

- food distribution

- sewage

- electricity

- emergency services coverage

- etc…

I don’t have any hard stats for you but my background reading has suggested these are significant.

> Nature, to my point. Recall that you're the one arguing that suburbs rather than agriculture is threatening nature

Yes, because we could be rewilding, creating new national parks etc. but instead are building suburbs. We can also replace existing suburbs on longer time-scales.

We're talking about land usage, not infrastructure. Agriculture completely dominates a person's land usage footprint.