I have a friend who grew up on a farm and one day was bemoaning the loss of good farm land to development. I mentioned to him that they don't need as much farm land as they did even decades ago to feed the population. His argument didn't really make sense. If we have enough land to grow crops and feed the population (and obviously we do), why would this suggest to him that developed ex-farm land was a bad thing?
He didn't have an answer for me. He didn't understand that land can be used for more than one thing. But many people, mostly libs, think like he does.
I was on the farm until 20 years ago. I was 38 when I left.
I tend to agree with your farmer friend. Good soil is a gift God gave to America, and to a few other places on the planet. We need to treat it carefully.
Farmers have been stewards of the soil since the country was founded, and to see it turn into a highway or mall is a little disturbing. I'm not suggesting stopping development, but the loss of such a limited resource shouldn't be treated lightly.
I grew up seeing first hand the difference between good soil and poor soil. Corn is $2.50 in the midwest today, mostly grown on good soil. If it was mostly grown on poorer soil, like a good share of our farm had, corn would easily be $10 a bushel, and your grocery bill would probably be 2 or 3 or 4 times what it is today. A lot less red meat too.
We've come a long ways, but your bread and butter is highly dependant on that top 6 inches of soil in the midwest.