A good question, but the answer is not so simple IMHO. To take an earlier example, most of those people who are most affected by the Iraq war don't have any influence on the US government (they can not vote for/against them). And I guess even the US public needs more information to decide whom to trust.

No. Not any information. But more of those with public finance than of other institutions. And I asked that question because you treated wikileaks and the US government on the same level.

Also:

Please don't transform it into some kind of personalities. Thank you.

I guess that's a "no". BTW:

Yes it does. In many small countries USA is able to influence internal politics with its economic power.

Is wikileaks an organization financed by the public involved in numerous wars with its armed forces?

Almost everyone except for me, who live in a city in Europe (although on the less glamorous, Eastern side of the EU). But I agree: longing after rural harmony and destroying that beloved quietness every day driving a big car to the hated city is ironic.

...and we're slowly descending into a spiral of wishing one anothers' death (kind of ironic)...

I know shit about fretilizers (sorry, couldn't resist), but AFAIK animal dung too has to be composted (especially chicken's) before use, and according to some anecdotes in China they used to use sewage from "public" privies (but that latter may be just that - an anecdote).

While I share Your feelings about extreme Malthusians (I mean the people, who publicly welcome any catastrophe because it lowers population) - I have yet to meet any "eco-extremists" (or "dark greens" as others like to label those people). In the same time every related discussion is ripe with hate towards e.g. "Al Gore's followers" (rutinely used to those who accept the science of anthropogenic global warming) or those anecdotal "eco-extremists". But it's just my impression, I'm not American (I guess You are) maybe we are just surrounded by different types of people.

That is my main problem with cities in general. You can eliminate pollution, make the city bike- and walk-friendly, reduce crime etc., but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress. Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city, but I guess I'm not alone.

Another factor against large cities sounds rather strange, (and I'm not really sure it should be decisive choosing your place of living): resistance to disaster - be it a flood, earthquake or a war. I remember seeing a presentation somewhere from the '50s which recommended developing suburb-like living areas because human casualties would be lower there in case of a nuclear explosion, than in a dense city.

That said I think there are major factors, other than wether you will live near a target if a nuclear war breaks out, or if Gozilla will stomp over your apartment (those monsters just love dense cities :)