Most countrysides look somewhat like that. At least the one i was forced to grow up in. Sure, there are lots of plants but nevertheless the land is ecologically dead because there's only a few species (mostly 3 different subspecies of corn). Sure there are some trees but i think the trees feel as lonely as i did when i lived there.
If you want to live in nature, go to the mountains or some place that has large bodies of water nearby (lakes, rivers, ocean). That's where the actual life is.
It's because of a mixture of landscape reasons. Large flat areas are attractive to farming, so that's what's being done. On the other side, mountains are unattractive for that because the big machines can't drive over uneven soil. Similarly, large waters host a ton of biodiversity because water is the origin of all life, and you can really feel that. Just give it a try.
Ah, my daily dose of US defaultism.
This is what the countryside around here looks like.
Also:
is an incredibly privileged thing to say.
i grew up in a small austrian town but it didn't really have much nature besides 3 trees standing next to our house (that i used to climb btw, was fun).
now i live in vienna and i spent like 10 hours last week exploring the river bank of a small river around here, it's beautiful. so much better. i realize that this is because of many factors, but one of them is that a flat empty piece of land can just be so absolutely mind-bogglingly boring and generic that nobody even bothers to try to make something beautiful out of it. at least that's my take.
Oh and vienna was built between the mountains on one side and a large river on the other side, and i am starting to think that that does make a difference. I've yet to put it to proper words, though.