> By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country.
Again, by the contemporary numbers. Contemporary trends cannot be translated into broad sociological statements about human beings. This is basic historical knowledge. In the US alone, the return to cities is a fairly recent phenomenon. Cities were considered undesirable and suburbs were heralded as having a better quality of life as recently as the 90s.
Historically, movement to cities has been driven almost entirely by economics. No one wanted to live in a cramped city slum and there was no "choice" between two equal options, one in the city and one in the country. It was more a choice of continued rural poverty, bordering on starvation, or a polluted, miserable, economically-better existence in a city.
This is how powerful the draw of cities are. People will happily sacrifice seeing the sun for an opportunity to live and work in a city - if the alternative was living in the country.
And I think it is pretty obvious that between city-no-sun, country and city-sun the ranking is going to be:
1) City-sun
2) City-no-sun
3) Country
By the numbers, nobody chooses to live in the country. Your counterargument is essentially that people have good reasons to live in the city - yeah, that is obvious. That is why they are making the choice that they are. I dunno what this 'neutral choice' concept is but I don't believe it is a real thing. Yeah they move for economic opportunities. That is why sterilising large areas is irrelevant. People have been tested and nobody cares about the environment when the economy is on the line; they are all going to be crammed together in cities.