New 7 Wonders of the World

[TheAmazingOopah]

Apparently there is a public internet election going on for "new 7 World Wonders", having something to do with the thing that most of the original wonders are perished, and that the brains behind this want to measure how the people think about the great architectal wonders of the world. Nominated are:

Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow, Russia
Acropolis, Athens, Greece
Petra, Jordan
Taj Mahal, Agra, India
Angkor, Cambodia
Pyramid at Chichén Itzá, Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico
Neuschwanstein Castle, Schwangau, Germany
Christ Redeemer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Stonehenge, Amesbury, U.K.
Colosseum, Rome, Italy
Machu Picchu, Peru
Statues of Easter Island, Easter Island, Chile
Eiffel Tower, Paris, France
Pyramids of Giza, Egypt
Great Chinese Wall, China
Alhambra, Granada, Spain
Sydney Opera House, Sydney, Australia
Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey
Kiyomizu Temple, Kyoto, Japan
Statue of Liberty, New York City, U.S.
Timbuktu, Mai

I for one really like the idea, because apart that it's just plain fun, the wonder titles really deserve an "update", IMHO. But do you guys aprove of a contest like this, or think it's rather public nonsense?
And do you think that essential buildings are missing out on being nominated? Most importantly: which 7 nominees deserve to win the most? And why?

(For pictures and voting, check the website: Election of New World Wide Wonders)

[Siberys]

It's funny how we name a sort of construction as a wonder of the world rather than say things that actually make you wonder, like-

Creation Theories
Evolutionary Theories
The Mayan Calendar
Prehistoric Bones Both Animal and Human
How the moon always changes the Tides in the oceans.


Most buildings aren't really wonders. How they were built can be scientifically proven, why they were built can be discovered by archaeologists, Pyramids were giant graveyards for example. The Mayan Calendar however, cannot be proven as easily. How is it that they had the concept of "Time" down so accurate to only 33 seconds off at that age of man? What does the End of the calendar mean?

Evolution and Creation are still wonders trying to be proven, mostly for the sake of logic versus faith, but still, Evolution is close, but it's not scientific fact yet and we've been trying to find this out for a LONG time. I'm not sure about the moon part if we actually know what causes that, but at the same time, if it effects that massive of an amount of water, what else can it effect such as humans per se?

So no, I don't think buildings should be wonders and I don't exactly see the point in people wanting them to be.

EDIT: And unless wikipedia is just flat out wrong again, I cannot believe that people would consider the internet a wonder of the world. That's just plain stupid.

[Hill-Shatar]

EDIT: And unless wikipedia is just flat out wrong again, I cannot believe that people would consider the internet a wonder of the world. That's just plain stupid.

You can't depend on that site for anything. When it comes down to it, you have a group of people who know what they are talking about and linking to, and then you have the people who go on heresay, remove things for noble reasons and a wide variety of others who have their own view on what Wikipedia should be with a lack of direction with what is allowed on the site.

It's great for links, though. =P

Kind of surprised at some of the things which they put up there. One or two are impressive sites or buildings, but some on the list can't compare to the others and are mostly tourist traps.

[dragon wench]

Personally, I don't have a problem designating something as a wonder if it is a tribute to human creativity. Architecture is often an expression of art, so why not?
I only ask that all of those who poured their blood and sweat, and often their lives, into said structure are also acknowledged... not just the "leader" who commissioned the thing.....

[Curdis]

It's funny how we name a sort of construction as a wonder of the world rather than say things that actually make you wonder, like-
<SNIP>
How the moon always changes the Tides in the oceans.
<SNIP>I'm not sure about the moon part if we actually know what causes that, but at the same time, if it effects that massive of an amount of water, what else can it effect such as humans per se?<SNIP>

The answer to tidal effects (on tides) is completely understood. It is the action of gravity on an unconstrained (<-partly) liquid. The next step you take - as in conflating the massive effect on water with what else it might therefore effect is a logical fallacy. Whether or not the position of the moon has an effect on things other than the tide is a wide and fascinating area of study. Some effects are as a result of the tidal action occuring (eg tidal ecosystems)some seem more cryptic. I'm not disagreeing with the moons effect on things being wonderful, just clearing up a few items in your statement.

I was more concerned that only (broadly) architectural achievements where being considered. The Hoover Dam, Sputnik, Bicycle, The Laser, and a vast number of other things like: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights seem worthy of being celebrated in such a list.

If it is all just a piece of good fun then I suppose I'm just being unfunny. - Curdis !

[Vicsun]

EDIT: And unless wikipedia is just flat out wrong again, I cannot believe that people would consider the internet a wonder of the world. That's just plain stupid.

The internet was a wonder in Civilization 3. If it was good enough for Civilization 3, it's definitely good enough for me. Humph.

Furthermore, if you're going to include things such as the Mayan Calendar and Creation Theory as wonders I demand you also allow space for the fact that inertial mass and gravitational mass are exactly equal when they don't have to be signifying that gravity is nothing more than an illusion caused by the universe accelerating in the fourth dimension! Who cares about insignificant human achievements like a six thousand kilometer wall, when you can have wonderous wonders such as these.

[Gilliatt]

Personally, I don't have a problem designating something as a wonder if it is a tribute to human creativity. Architecture is often an expression of art, so why not?

Since you have already said it in a better way I would have had, I will just say that I completely agree.

What I am wondering is this: since they want to redo it because the old 7 wonders are gone, why don't they choose 8 or 9 wonders this time. If they think it must be redone, why don't they do it a little bit differently? By doing it differently, I think it will look more like a tribute and not like a way of saying "the old one are things of the past so lets get rid of them and replace them".

[Siberys]

Furthermore, if you're going to include things such as the Mayan Calendar and Creation Theory as wonders I demand you also allow space

Well yeah, it wasn't like I was purposely leaving that out. I just listed random wonders that popped in my head. If I included everything, it would be too long of a list for a single post probably.

[QuenGalad]

Well, it all depends on what do you understand by "wonder". Because, you know, to me, replacing somebody's heart with other so that she can live longer is damn wondefull. And many other medical achievments (sp? ) too. On the other hand, art can be seen as best showing the real ingenuity of humans, so why not?

But I strongly object to putting Pyramid at Chichén Itzá, the Stonehenge and, say, Opera House at Sydney together. The modern buildings are made with much better technology, and it's much easier to make them impressive. They're not wonderous enough, with all the technical help of nowadays.

[C Elegans]

Many of the classical seven wonders signified human achivements in architecture that either were so advanced for its' time so it seemed magical or miraculous to others, and/or were so artistically beautiful and "perfect" according to classiscal aesthetics, so it seemed magical and almost "superhuman". That's why they were called "wonders".

Due to my extensive travelling, I'm lucky enough to have seen almost all the candidates on the list, and to stick the tradition of "seemly miraculous" constructions, I would vote for:

Pyramids in Giza
The Great Wall
Statues of Easter Island
Stonehenge
Machu Piccu

For the last two I am not sure, maybe:

Angkor Wat
Alhambra or Petra

If pure beauty should be a criterion, Taj Mahal and Hagia Sofia should be included, but I exclude them since AFAIK, at the time when they were constructed, known technology was used which means there was no sense of "superhuman wonder" in the same way as for the pyramids or the Stonehenge.

I am surprised however to find stuff like the Eiffel tower, Liberty statue and Christ Redeemer rather than for instance the Forbidden City, Luxor Temple or the Potala Palance. Also, I think Djenne should have been on the list instead of Timbuktu, since it's both older and more beautiful, although less well known.

[TheAmazingOopah]

The winners got announced on Live Earth Day, which may be already two weeks ago, but better late than never! The seven lucky bastards, put together by over 100 million votes, were:

The Great Wall, China
Petra, Jordan
Christ Redeemer, Brazil
Machu Picchu, Peru
Chichén Itzá, Mexico
The Roman Colosseum, Italy
The Taj Mahal, India

Congratulations! May they enjoy their new earned title and celebrate it with their families.

Having seen only two of the seven winners for real (Taj Mahal and Collosseum), and knowing too little of constructions/places like Machu Picchu and Chichén Itzá, I can't completely judge how deserved these winners are. I am glad though that Taj Mahal made it to the list (voted for that one, as well), but the Collosseum doesn't really deserve it if you ask me; interesting building with a compelling history, but there were better candidates.

My fear was that the Statue of Liberty would've made to the best seven, simply out of patriotic feelings by a big group of U.S. voters, but luckily that didn't happen. Possibly because there were too little patriotic U.S. voters, or because most U.S. voters had more cultural sense than that. And apparently the Piramides of Giza got taken out of the competition because Egypt found it insulting that the only remaining original wonder had to be voted in again, so they gave the piramids an honoury notion. Which may be a bit too sensitive for my taste, but at least they got a seperate notion, and weren't included as one of the seven winners just like that. Too bad though that you couldn't vote for them.

About what Siberys said, that it's silly to have buildings elected as 7 wonders of the world instead of the creation theory or the effect of the moon on the earth: I think that the main reason that they went with buildings was that the original 7 wonders did so as well. They just did another election, but now in a different time with some new buildings as possibilities and most of the old buildings gone. Such a contest is a very relative thing, and the results can really vary, being bound to the era and the candidates. In that aspect I also don't think that having a new election is a way of "replacing" the old wonders, and that they should've rather chosen 8 or 9 wonders; I really think that titles like these are worthy of a second edition, so to speak, especially with almost every wonder of the first election gone, and this being more focused on what the world has to offer now, taken the old wonders aside.
And to get back on why things like the Mayan Calendar and evolution theory didn't get included: those are really subjects in a different category, and can't be compared to buildings if you ask me. With buildings we mostly focus on its beauty, it's clever constructure, and we wonder how people managed to build it with the options at hand. The evolution theory is a much more abstract thing, a theory, and in a way more complicated. It's not something solid, but only a gathering of ideas, to put it flatly. If it is even possible to have a competition between things like theories or say astronomical wonders, then it should be left to a contest of its own, and I think it's definitely a good, and more fairer thing to keep it seperated from buildings. The 7 Wonders are still a bit hard to elect, because of what CE pointed out (it's clearer how they built the Taj Mahal opposed to Stonehenge, which would be more of a wonder), but it definitely is more of the same ball park. And the reason why they named it "The Seven World Wide Wonders" and not "The Seven World Wide Most Amazing Buildings" or something comparable, is I guess that they just took the same title as they used for the original buildings. And again, this new competition wasn't really an original thing, more of a second edition of something.

The next thing coming up is an election of 7 natural wonders, like the Grand Canyon or the Aletsch Glacier, also an interesting thing definitely (which eventually will lead to the election of the 7 Wondrous Traffic Lights and the 7 Greatest Manhole Covers – just kidding ). The winners will probably start attracting more tourists than usual, which isn't that great, but places like the Niagara Falls already attract a lot of tourists, and most of the extra tourists would probably just travel somewhere else anyway, so I guess that's reprehensible...

[Maharlika]

Odd...

I have always thought that the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banaue_Rice_Terraces"]Banaue Rice Terraces of the Philippines[/url] are considered as part of the Wonders of the World...