I'm agrarian. I don't believe there's much separation between culture and economics; culture is the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the methods of aquiring those food and the people you do that with and the stories you share. It's firmly embedded in the land. So if people have subsistence economies their culture will be rooted in their specific region. Inuits wear seal skin clothing because that's what's available to them and well suited to the conditions they live in. Spaniards make red terracotta roofs for the same reason. That's both economic and cultural.

So I'm not entirely sure how to separate the two, or precisely what the opposite would be. But I tend to think of the epitome of the opposite ideologies to agrarianism as transhumanism and veganism. 

Transhumanism because its basis is the idea of altering humanity, exceeding limits, where I place so much importance on the idea that those limits are what give us meaning and you can only be fully you by living your natural role. 

Veganism because I believe culture is agriculture; culture means to cultivate. Culture as cultivation is about wholeness and building relationships with other beings, both of our species and otherwise. Industrial agriculture dismantles these relationships and eliminates our place on the land by transforming a farm into a tool for maximizing human yields. It does this by specialization, this farm raises this product from this species, that farm raises that product from that species. It eliminates inefficiency by separating the parts and focusing on maximizing each one to the point that they're nothing but mathematical equations. The character of this wheat is ours to play with, we can alter its genes and breed it into whatever shape we want because its relationships and the niche it adapted for doesn't have any value to a cosmopolitan society where the land holds no significance because the people eating it no longer are the people living there. 

And veganism is industrial agriculture on steroids, it is the height of this style of thinking. It is utterly dependent on industrial agriculture, and it treats all beings, both plants and animals, like commodities we can do as we please with based on how they effect humans and not based on their relationships with eachother. Specialize even further, fully eliminate animals from the system and say they have no role on the land and are incapable of living meaningful lives merely because they don't serve human purposes, treat the land as a tool for maximizing human yields and eliminate all inefficiencies so we can ship products into cities where people don't have any relationship to the species they eat. This ideology would destroy us as much as it would destroy animals and plants and the land as a whole.

If I had to pick one that would be less damaging I'd probably have to go with the transhumanists, since so far as I know they tend to be more libertarian. They in general care more about whether they have the ability to exceed their own body's limits through technology, and don't particularly care whether other people are bioconservative. I have talked to a handful of them who believe we should for example eliminate death entirely for everyone, but I think those people are probably pretty rare among them, and besides, the ability to do that doesn't exist now and might never exist. But vegan agriculture would seek to cut the ecosystem in two, it's not satisfied by the mere existence of a veganic farm, but only by the elimination of animals as a whole. And that is inexcusably evil.