Sure, maybe it slows it. But that's also less competition, which means the supply-demand equilibrium will shift so that when people who want to live in low density areas can have larger lots and houses. Pretty much offsetting the choices of the others.

Not to mention any increase in population will lead to increase in resource utilization, thus increase in natural resource exploitation.

correct. You can't stop sprawl just by upzoning, but maybe you can slow it. It takes a suite of urban planning effort to really combat sprawl, and allowing people to construct and live in dense neighborhoods of their own free will is just the first baby step in that direction.

> the supply-demand equilibrium will shift [..] Pretty much offsetting the choices of the others.

There's no basis for this statement. It sounds like you're suggesting that farmland and woods already don't exist, so if people move into dense regions, then we're just shuffling the remaining land zero-sum among those who would prefer not to live in the city.

There are, in fact, plenty of places that haven't yet been taken over by humans. And when people looking to move to a city can move to the city, companies are less incentivized to develop and subdivide 20 miles from the city.

So, it's not zero sum. Allowing more people to live in the city decreases the demand for development out of the city.

Basic economics, really.

"There are, in fact, plenty of places that haven't yet been taken over by humans."

That's shrinking rapidly. You could watch A Life On This Planet for some insight on the scope of development/utilization.

Population growth appears to be leveling off globally, which implies that if sprawl was slowed enough it could be stopped completely.