Especially ironic when suburbanites rave about how houses are infinitely better than apartments because they’re “closer to nature.” You want to be closer to nature? Let natural processes work and have a lawn of whatever grows in your area naturally (even an “invasive” species is better than lawn grasses, unironically, and lawn grasses are almost always also non-native species, just ones that can’t actually survive in the environment.) Don’t water, don’t mow, don’t fertilize, just let nature do its thing. It will also attract more pollinators, birds, wildlife in general and instead of a lawn, soon you’ll have a natural meadow in your yard. That’s nature, a lawn that needs excessive water, chemical fertilizers, and poison just to maintain isn’t.
A well-maintained little ecosystem in a garden is a lot closer to nature than an appartment, I don’t see what you’re trying to get at.
A mowed lawn is ecologically only marginally better than pavement. Maybe even worse when pesticides and herbicides are involved.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but what’s better, a place where nothing grows, or a place where only the wrong things grow?
And vegetation can grow in cities. If you don’t turn the entire city into parking lots middle-america style, cities can have plenty of public parks.
If that wrong thing isn’t a parasite to the local nature, then it’s definitely better than nothing.