Cities are more efficient than rural communities.

They can be in some respects, sure. They are also vastly more unhealthy to reside in, will likely fail to meet energy needs and water needs in the face of a shift in climate and in precipitation, and are suffering from vast amounts of pollution in every direction.

Concentration of people is better than spreading everyone out.

I disagree with your opinion, but in a more healthy world I would probably agree with you.

You’d see much more environmental destruction if everyone moved rural.

With today's world and consumerism, you are probably correct.

Plus it’s much harder to get resources to rural communities.

This country is ripe for high-speed rail infrastructure for freight. I think local communities should be less dependent on the global/national economy to meet their needs. If we can put Walmarts everywhere and stock them to the brim with junk from China (etc.) we can provide people the basic necessities.

Modifications should be made but everyone pooping in the woods in a bucket isn’t a good idea either.

I don't think we need to poop in buckets and I wasn't suggesting it. Overall, we need completely new systems that are known to be safe and effective, regulatory bodies that are functioning and on the side of the people (or humanity as a whole), and a mass banning of chemicals like Europe.

I apologize for the quick and perceivably chide responses, I think we both want a better world and we likely agree on a lot of things. I see your good intentions. Thank you for sharing your perspective and I really do appreciate your responses and time - I just don't personally see the path forward in ultra-capitalist hellscapes like cities. There is too much complexity, mindless dependence on the existing systems, and too much overarching parasitism standing in the way in those areas for meaningful progress unless there are vast shifts occurring which I do not have the foresight or eyes to see.