Your point of well explained in the book 'Rational Optimist'
The intensive farming actually increased wilderness.
With tech of 1960, it would have required 86% of land to be farmed to feed current world population.
The general approach changes at least here. The largest difference is relatively smaller density of dead wood in the forests, which is important and still not fully understood habitat.
Also a lot of the forest mass that gets cut is used for "green energy" so it's worse than letting it stay in the forest. Basically in a periodically burnt (bioenergy) forest the carbon is kept in the atmosphere most of the time while in an old growth forest it's in the trunks all the time.