Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Did We Really Need Seven New Wonders? 324

freakxx writes "Seven new 'wonders of the world' have been announced today in a ceremony in Lisbon, Portugal. People throughout the world have voted actively to elect the new 7 out of 21 finalists. The final lineup is: Chichen Itza, Mexico; Christ Redeemer, Brazil; The Great Wall, China; Machu Picchu, Peru; Petra, Jordan; The Roman Colosseum, Italy; and The Taj Mahal, India. The Pyramids of Giza was the only candidate that used to be among the original seven wonders. Did we really need seven new wonders of the world? Why was this decided via a website poll (pdf) and SMS messages?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did We Really Need Seven New Wonders?

Comments Filter:
  • by froggero1 ( 848930 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:13AM (#19786895)
    see topic...
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      The original 7 wonders are not complete - there needs to be additions, but they should be added individually, and with great discretion. Experts in this field should be polled, as they will have the best perspective on the 'wonders of the world'. Not being an expert, though, I suspect that both the Taj Mahal and the Roman Colosseum could be considered wonders.
      • by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:31AM (#19786999)
        Why does there need to be additions? THe value of the list is as a perspective into the world of ancient Greece. There's no need for a modern list.
        • by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:05AM (#19787177)
          I'd agree to that. Why do there need to be additions? It's just a list. I want to see many of these "new" wonders some day, but just because Petra is on an arbitrary list and a group of people who knew about the poll doesn't make it any more of a wonder just as Angor Wat not being on the list doesn't make it any less of a wonder. It's just a a way some people found of making money under the guise of world unity. Even the first list isn't really necessary. It reminds me of the Book of Lists. All any list can be is just the opinion of one or more people (unless empirical objective measurements are used) and that book proved it with many lists a lot of people disagreed with. All the lists are arbitrary.
          • by trippeh ( 1097403 )
            The seven wonders of the world should not be decided by SMS and online polls. That eliminates a huge ammount of the population. Of course, I can't think of a better way of doing it. And I also think that a large number of that eliminated group wouldn't have the global knowledge, or the inclination, to pick seven different things. But it's still unfair and further widens the digital divide (if indeed the digital divide exists...)
            • by Zantetsuken ( 935350 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @05:40AM (#19787637) Homepage
              I agree - this is the kind of thing that at the very least should be sent out with a governmental census in at the least major nations throughout the world. All this is is as you said - a couple of scam artists who got a bunch of lit-study and art students at a few local colleges who are smart enough to know world history and geography but not have the common sense to see a scam like this to pick from a multiple choice list of prechosen items...

              Also, this is one more thing to make current generations look like total idiots to their grandkids 50 years from now - like how they recently announced that Pluto is not actually a planet. People all over will be telling their grandkids "Back in my day, Pluto *WAS* a planet, and their were only *7* wonders of the world! AND we liked it that way!" to be responded with "Ya, sure grampa, time for your medication now!"
              • If we have to do this, then it should be done right. Every country presents their "wonder" through the United Nations. How the countries decide to do it is up to them. Every ten years, that list of "wonders" is revamped to reflect new national alignments and structures built.

                Personally, I'd rather we just leave it alone. But if we're going to change it to reflect the new age, then we should also reflect on the fact that there are a shitload more countries now than in the days of ancient Greece, and each

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by morcego ( 260031 )
                  I strongly disagree with you. What use is running this along a census if a good part of the people never saw even one of those, let alone enough of them to make an educated choice ?

                  You have 21 candidates ? Ok, only people who has ever visited (no photos) all of them should be allowed to pool.

                  As things stand, people voted on the one on their own country (mostly). I know that is what happened in Brazil (being a brazilian myself).
              • I went to Macchu Picchu about two weeks ago. They had computers lined up outside, hooked up to the Internet, Kiosk-moded to the survey website for this retarded thing.

                I thought exactly the same thing as all of you, but I'd also argue that there's probably a good chunk of the votes coming from the shell-shocked people walking out of places like Macchu Picchu. I know I was tempted, because goddamn... It's beautiful, and amazing architecture, and a good bit of impressive history, and a little halucinogenic ga
          • Personally, I make my list and judge what wonders I want to see based on how useful they are when I build them in Civilization.

            Great Wall of China? Psh. Walls are mostly useless.
            But the Hanging Gardens? Aw yeah, +2 health to all cities, baby!
            • Great Wall of China? Psh. Walls are mostly useless.
              You forgot the +100% Great General emergence rate, which is pretty useful in a game called "Warlords" :-)
            • by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @07:52AM (#19788225) Journal
              Dude, the Great Wall of China is awesome. It basically protects you from almost all aggression for a huge chunk of the game, thus allowing you to focus your attention almost exclusively on using your resources to build up your cities and rapidly expand your territory.

              Wonders that you want to definitely want to have:

              1. The Pyramids (free Granary in every city);
              2. The Great Library (automatically get every advancement learnt by two rivals until Electricity);
              3. The Great Wall (enemies must offer a ceasefire or peace in negotiations until Metallurgy);
              4. Marko Polo's Embassy (free embassies, best info on your rivals);
              5. Leonardo's Workshop (upgrades obsolete units to the best possible until Automobile);
              6. Shakespeare's Theatre (city is always content, awesome for later conquesting);
              7. King Richard's Crusade (huge shield boost for city, great for pumping out other wonders quickly while it lasts);
              8. Michelangelo's Chapel (free Cathedral in every city, doesn't expire like some other happiness Wonders);
              9. Sun Tzu's War Academy (produce veteran military units without Barracks until Mobile Warfare);
              10. Adam Smith's Trading Co. (reduces your maintenance costs by a chunk);
              11. Hoover Dam (clean power to all your cities, boosting shield output);
              12. Women's Sufferage (free Police Station in every city, helps conquesting);
              13. United Nations (like the Great Wall but later in the game);
              14. SETI Program (doubles your science output across the board);
              15. Cure for Cancer (one extra happy citizen in all cities).

              The other 13 Wonders are a mixed bag. Some are pretty useful (eg, Magellan's Expedition, which will help your navy and is good if you're crossing large oceans) but some are just dire (eg, Collosus, which will get you a mediocre trade boost).

              Given a choice between the Great Wall and the Hanging Gardens and I'll take the Great Wall any day.
      • by OutLawSuit ( 1107987 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:41AM (#19787045)
        I do think the list is pretty reasonable except for the Christ the Redeemer Statue. The thing that makes the statue really stand out is its location but it falls in line with other monuments like the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty which are arguably more impressive. I also have a problem with more modern creations being included on the last. Angkor Wat in Cambodia or even the Leaning Tower of Pisa seem much more appropriate for this list.
        • Yeah, the only thing the Redeemer statue demonstrates is that there are a lot of people in Brazil with cellphones.

          The thing is only 77 years old. Give it a few more centuries and we'll talk. If you want interesting statues, the Easter Island heads were on the list of finalists, but apparently the Easter Islanders must've had trouble getting online.
    • by tacocat ( 527354 )

      Thanks for clarifying that for me. Maybe I can get the T-Shirt collection at Arby's

  • by Frivas ( 219029 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:15AM (#19786899) Homepage
    This was just a big worldwide scam... hoy many millions do they got with the SMS?? how big is their email database now? I bet that these mails will get a lot more spam...
  • by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:15AM (#19786905)
    I guess the 8th is still Andre.
  • It was a PR stunt (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:16AM (#19786909)
    I think the Pyramids came out the winner because they refused to participate.
  • Why lament it? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rolfwind ( 528248 )
    Most of the original seven wonders are long gone. That's why this was needed. Really, what was the original list? Just a compilation from the Greco-Roman point of view. This time this could have more international flavor.

    This is also good exposure not just to the 7 winners, but to all the nominees. I certainly learn about a few sights I have not heard of before. Unless you think us Americans really ought to go to stay ignorant and go to Disneyland every year (I give no money to that company).
    • The problem with declaring these "winners" is that it's obviously bullshit.

      Christ is like, what, 100' tall? The Statue of Liberty has at least 50' on that thing. And while I'm sure that ancient Americans did some good work to get rocks to sit on top of each other, digging the Chunnel is much more impressive.

      I want a fucking re-count...
    • Re:Why lament it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by _Shad0w_ ( 127912 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:59AM (#19787449)

      The Great Pyramid of Giza is the only original left. A couple of the others survived into the C15th, most the rest were gone before the fall of the Roman Empire. I think the statue of Zeus just managed to survive beyond that...then got dismantled by the Christians.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by jonadab ( 583620 )
      Perhaps you were not aware, but in addition to the original list of seven wonders there are approximately seventy hillion bajillion other existing lists of seven wonders. The concept of listing seven wonders of the world was not terribly immaginative in the first place, but after about a thousand iterations, it's now quite thoroughly Done To Death. We already have the original seven wonders of the world, numerous revised lists of seven wonders in the ancient world, several revised lists from medieval Euro
    • Re:Why lament it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @09:17AM (#19788699)
      "Most of the original seven wonders are long gone. That's why this was needed."

      Because nobody can appreciate the idea of building, say, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or the Lighthouse at Alexandria using only ancient technology and materials without actually seeing them?

      "Just a compilation from the Greco-Roman point of view."

      The list itself was a Greek idea. Deal with it.

      "This time this could have more international flavor."

      If by "international" you mean "has access to SMS."

      "This is also good exposure not just to the 7 winners, but to all the nominees."

      Because it's possible to have heard of this cheesy marketing stunt but not to have heard of any of the ancient structures and modern tourist traps listed?

      "Unless you think us Americans really ought to go to stay ignorant and go to Disneyland every year"

      Oh, I'm sure if Disneyland needed any more marketing and appeared in the list offered, it would have made the finalists.

      "(I give no money to that company)."

      "I've never owned a Mickey Mouse watch" isn't enough to be able to safely claim that you've never patronized any business or subsidiary of the Disney corporation in any way.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sique ( 173459 )
      First of all: The translation is misleading. What Antipatros was compiling was a list of "seven showpieces of the known world", basicly a tourist list to mark off for wealthy travellers with too much time at hand.

      And for that the new list serves pretty well.
  • by Rix ( 54095 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:18AM (#19786925)
    A giant dashboard jesus? Here's a more sensible list:

    1. The internet
    2. The electric grid (this really can be seen from space, the great wall can't, really)
    3. Voyager probes
    4. Global Positioning System
    5. The Human Genome Project
    6. Nuclear power
    7. Cochlear implants
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:27AM (#19786981)
      8. Slashdot
    • by xPsi ( 851544 )
      Here, here! Mod parent up.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with giving a nod to ancient human engineering achievements. But why this legacy fixation with finding exactly 7 new ones? On a particularly irritating note, Christ the Redeemer statue was opened in 1931, hardly a wonder of the ancient world.

    • by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:36AM (#19787019)
      When it comes to human accomplishment, the Jesus statue is comparatively pathetic. B

      eing 38 m tall and built using 20th century technology, it's nowhere near as big an accomplishment as the 33m high colossus of Rhodes which was finished in 282 BC.

      Even the statue of liberty (built in the 19th century and 46 meters tall) is a bigger accomplishment than the Brazilian statue.

      I won't even start to compare it to the other six Wonders because it will fade into nothingness.
      • Heck, 38 m is PATHETIC. Try with the eifel tower, 300m of structure end of 19th/start of 20th. To give you an idea here below is J the Jesus status, and E the eifel tower, S the status of liberty (also built by french if I recall correctly) Each line is 15 meter.


        The big J look suddenly really pathetic. But i can guess why it was wated on.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Stormwatch ( 703920 )
          As a sidenote... Gustave Eiffel also designed the Statue of Liberty's internal structure.
    • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:42AM (#19787057) Journal
      No no no. Should be:

      1. Porn!
      2. Porn!
      3. Porn!
      4. Porn!
      5. Porn!
      6. Porn!
      7. Lesbian Porn!
    • by abes ( 82351 )
      0. The iPhone

      What!? Someone had to say it .. and it is supposed to be Jesus like..
    • Wouldn't the wonders need to be buildings or other tangible structures?

      The electric grid might count. But cochlear implants! Come on!

    • by eric76 ( 679787 )
      But where is Dolly Parton on the list?
    • by vux984 ( 928602 )
      The "Wonders of the World" are about tourism. There is nothing wrong with that. That are selected from sites that would be good to SEE isn't a bad thing.

      If you want to create another list of amazing and important accomplishments that would make for a lousy world trip, nobody is stopping you. Oh wait... you did. ;)

      Pass. I'll see the tourist ones.
    • Yes, but none of these are build out of stone. Although these are the 7 *new* world wonders, we would like to keep some kind of continuity, thank you. It's a big surprise that the piramids were not choosen to be the first world wonder. The amount of stone in those things is really amazing. If you go for stone, go pyramid!

  • by davFr ( 679391 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:20AM (#19786933)
    I have never heard of this poll before, although I am living in western Europe. Did eastern Europe knew about it? Did Asia participate in this poll? Did Africa have the internet accesses to participate?
    The previous list was enumerated by a Greek philosoph of the ancient time, it was not some marketing bullshit from Realizar Marketing.
    • Most philosophers today DO have internet access.

      Considering that thousands of people voted today in comparison with ONE MAN in the ancient time, I'd say there was a lot of participation.

      And so what if it's just a "publicity stunt"? Perhaps this will help people to appreciate other cultures, and I don't think that is bad at all.
    • The previous list was enumerated by a Greek philosoph of the ancient time, it was not some marketing bullshit from Realizar Marketing.

      Weren't ancient philosophers the bullshit marketers of their time?
  • by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:23AM (#19786955)
    ignore it, there's no one in the world who can claim to "offically" represent this list. besides most people voting on the list would never have even seen any of them in the flesh. just another bogus list to ignore.
  • No. But people just keep churning them out. Must be genetic.

    Now, who's going to help me with my top 7 things we don't need more of:

    1) Top X lists of things

  • The reason... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zouden ( 232738 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:36AM (#19787021)
    No, "we" didn't need seven new wonders, but the company behind this poll took money in exchange for letting people vote multiple times [].
    With the increased tourism revenue that being on this list would provide, one can expect that many governments would have taken advantage of this offer.
    This list was a scam, plain and simple. There are so many wonderful things in the world... what the hell is the point of identifying 7 "most popular" ones?
  • Apart from questioning the entire purpose of semi-randomly choosing exactly 7 new world wonders (civilization and their accomplishments has grown tremendously since 140 BC), what exactly is the point of including many rather new constructions in the list? The Sydney Opera House and Statue of Liberty are indeed quite nice, but can they really be called a world wonder and are they actually comparable to the Colosseum? IMHO there should have been categories to distinguish between important historic sites that
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:55AM (#19787133) Journal
    Did We Really Need Seven New Wonders?

    B. Gates says that 6 is all anybody will ever need. (duck)
  • whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by misanthrope101 ( 253915 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:02AM (#19787161)
    Any list of wonders that excludes Angkor Wat is a waste of time.
    • And how about Mount Rushmore? I could never take the list of original 'options' seriously when I noticed that it had e.g. the Sydney Opera House. Don't get me wrong, the Sydney Opera House is a marvel of engineering - but compared to Mt. Rushmore and, indeed, Angkor Wat.. ?
    • by jamrock ( 863246 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @03:29PM (#19791577)

      Any list of wonders that excludes Angkor Wat is a waste of time.

      Not to mention including Christ the Redeemer and giving the Pyramids "honorary" status. What a joke. The whole "Wonders of the World" thing was just a way to interest the general (European) public in the amazing sights to be found in the far corners of what was then still a mysterious world, and there were seven of them because it dovetailed well with the romantic notion of "Seven Seas" and "Seven Continents". It was just basically all about publicity by and for the archaeologists and explorers. This "New Seven Wonders" shtick is about nothing more than publicity as well, because if I had to limit it to only seven, Christ the Redeemer would not be on it.

      The case could easily be made for Angkor Wat, as well as many, many other sites of cultural, historical, and/or architectural significance, but AFAIK the "Forgotten Wonder" has never even been mentioned on any list of "World Wonders". I'm speaking about the Banaue Rice Terraces of the Philipine Cordilleras [], which were named a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995, and which have my vote as the most amazing civil engineering project in human history. The terraces certainly fit the "Wonder" criteria many times over: they're ancient, having been built between 6,000 and 2,000 years ago, predating any of the current or vanished wonders; they're colossal, covering almost 4,000 square miles of mountainside; they're a marvel of engineering, the entire vast system of walls, terraces, steps, not to mention the ancient irrigation system which brings water down from the rainforests above the terraces, were built by hand; and most incredibly of all, 2,000 years after completion they're still maintained and used by the descendants of the original builders.

      Everything about the terraces is truly mind-boggling, including the idea of a people still pursuing the same cultural traditions for literally millennia, but I guess that a bunch of ancient mountain farmland in a remote part of Asia isn't as sexy as Jesus in Brazil.

  • wonders (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frostalicious ( 657235 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:05AM (#19787173) Journal
    Did We Really Need Seven New Wonders?

    Well maybe Civilization V is coming out soon and they didn't want to go with the same crap as last time?
    • I was surprised you were the only person to make a Civ joke.

      Extra points if you can come up with what bonuses these new-fangled wonders would provide.
      • by Jesus_666 ( 702802 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @11:02AM (#19789491)
        The Great Wall - Gives a free city wall to each of your cities until three turns later when an AI player's discovery of gunpowder will make city walls obsolete.
        Chichen Itza - Adds 1 to the trade production of the city due to very modest tourism.
        Machu Picchu - All llama-based units cost half as many shields to produce.
        Petra - All units regenerate without having to be in a city, provided that Indiana Jones manages to retrieve the Holy Grail from it without destroying the entire place. Don't get your hopes up.
        Roman Colosseum - Just like a regular colosseum, just much more expensive.
        Taj Mahal - Allows you to show off to the entire world that yes, indeed you do have already discovered Ceremonial Burial. Go you.
        Christ Redeemer - Allows you to build the New Seven Wonders Poll wonder.
        New Seven Wonders Poll (requires The Internet and the Christ Redeemer wonder) - Generates 1 unrest in all cities of civilizations who have discovered The Internet due to Slashdotters being enraged over the Christ Redeemer making the list.
  • by UnCivil Liberty ( 786163 ) * on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:06AM (#19787191)
    doesn't include a CowboyNeal option? Lame.
  • by jd ( 1658 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {kapimi}> on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:18AM (#19787271) Homepage Journal
    I will start by defining what I mean by a "Wonder": Something that was arguably beyond the means or skills of the builders prior to construction, required some sort of inventiveness or innovation to make what was available enough, could not easily be reproduced by cultures technically far superior (a weekend wonder is not much of a wonder - it should still produce real shock and awe hundreds or thousands of years later), and should inspire wonder in the majority of people, without regard to culture or nationality.

    A wall of mud/straw bricks, a rather basic statue? The Colosseum wasn't counted by the Greeks and Romans, because they didn't see it as particularly spectacular. Machu Picchu and Petra I can understand. Those are genuinely wonders, in my books. The difficulty in construction was more tan just a matter of patience and time - there were genuinely major technological problems that required solving.

    Then consider the marvels of their use. The Great Wall was a showpiece - it had negligible defensive value and did far more to engender paranoia within the culture. Not particularly marvelous - politicians create such illusions to feed paranoid tendencies all the time. Petra was the trading capital of the world, even into Roman times. It was to ancient commerce what the major ports and stock exchanges combined are to modern commerce. And it was built by a bunch of nomads who were tired of trail rations, not some major advanced civilization.

    When you look at the Ancient Wonders, you look at things that maxed out (or exceeded) the capabilities of those building it. There are several that are so staggering that people are still unsure if they ever existed. The fact that the upper Pyramid blocks were poured like concrete hardly diminishes them - it shows how much they had to push their engineers that they had to invent a whole entire branch of material science to just finish the damn thing.

    "Christ the Redeemer" needed what? Some reinforced concrete and a layer of soapstone. A big construction, sure, worthy of being considered a great feat of sculpting, but hardly in the same league as requiring entire new sciences and technologies.

    I like the idea of seven new wonders, but they really should be wonders. They should highlight the true pinnacles of the human spirit. The list presented highlighted the pinnacle of what looks good on a postcard. Not exactly what I'd call wonders.

    As for the question of whether they should have been decided by vote, I'd have split this up. I'd have given votes to people over the Internet/phone/whatever, but I'd have made some effort to limit it to one person one vote. I would THEN have given a panel of scientists/engineers an equal number of votes to represent the technological/scientific wonderfulness of each site. Finally, I'd have given another equal portion of votes to anthropologists, sociologists and cultural experts covering as many cultures and nations as possible.

    The winning seven would then be decided by the merits of the awe in individuals, the awe in the achievement and the likely longevity and universality of that awe. Anything that can do well in all three categories is deserving of being called a Wonder. In practical terms, this means stepping through each list until you find seven that every group agrees is top. If you go more than a few percent without finding seven, you keep the winners so far, dump the rest of the list, and start with fresh achievements. And you keep going until you have achieved a universal agreement on the seven greatest Wonders.

    • by syylk ( 538519 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @06:43AM (#19787857) Homepage
      You're restricting your horizon to engineering wonders.

      The original wonders, actually, were compiled as a list of "must see" sites. Not necessarily because it was hard to build them. The statue of Zeus, for example, was a 12mt tall statue that was not by any means difficult to build. By the time it was built, there were many more taller statues. But it was something to see, as awe-inspiring was the Father of the Gods for the ancient greeks.

      I'd call the original seven wonders exactly the same "tourist scam" as other slashdotters are pulling their hairs in shock.

      So, you're correct when you say "it should still produce real shock and awe hundreds or thousands of years later [...] and should inspire wonder in the majority of people, without regard to culture or nationality". That's exactly what the present list (tries and) does.

      The Cristo Redentor? Yes, a basic 38mt concrete statue. But built upon an almost vertical, 700m tall granite dome, reachable only with a twisting trail, or a tiny railroad, that overlooks a 10 million inhabitants city. Building the statue was trivial, even in 1930. Building the statue THERE was an engineering nightmare. Remember: there were NO helicopters in 1930. But the value of that piece of concrete is not the difficulty to build it. Is the image of a big guy "hugging" every citizen in the city from his tall pedestal. The statue can be seen from almost any part of the huge city, and the sense of "he's protecting me" is the awe you were referring to. Not just the trivial block of soapstone.

      The Colosseum? Well, a stadium, give or take. Big as you want, but still just a fancy arena. The only engineering feat you can find there is the mechanic devices (mostly pulleys and leverages) that allowed access to the battlefield from the dungeon below. The picture changes a lot if you consider that - during the "technical life" of the Colosseum - an estimated 400'000 people died there. Check which entire metropolitanean area contain 400'000 people in US: _metropolitan_statistical_areas_by_population [] Want to wipe Reno, Pensacola or Flint? Throw them in the Colosseum! Colosseum is the single place where most people died in the history of humanity. And mostly, for games!!! Aren't you impressed at the mere idea? How fucked up our human race is, with its blood thirst and desire to see the destruction of its own kin? Much more than by staring at the ruined marble block, I'm sure.

      Oh, and Antipater wrote about such list in 140BC. The colosseum was built in 80AC. Unless Antipater was able to see 220 years in the future, I don't understand how he could have added it to the list. ;)
  • But not a list generated by a self-selected set of voters, with little security over people voting twice (I have multiple cell numbers and an infinite number of E-mail addresses.)

    You either need a verified, non self-selected set of the public, or a committee of top travel writers, like the Baseball hall of fame.
  • by cashman73 ( 855518 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:39AM (#19787367) Journal
    He also didn't limit it to only seven []. Our world has many more things on it that would easily be classified as, "wonders." There's no reason for limitations (except, of course, for money, greed, or tourism dollars).
  • No iphone (Score:5, Funny)

    by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @04:59AM (#19787451) Homepage
    I can't believe the iphone didn't make it. This list is totally bogus.
  • We're now capable of far bigger feats of engineering and architecture so why not take a look at some of the modern wonders. e.g. The Panama canal, the 3 Gorges Dam, Taipei 101 etc etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

      We're now capable of far bigger feats of engineering and architecture so why not take a look at some of the modern wonders. e.g. The Panama canal, the 3 Gorges Dam, Taipei 101 etc etc.

      Such wonders aren't exactly wonderous - to qualify, it needs to be a feat for it's time (e.g. be something that is rather difficult to reproduce, or is "expensive".) It's also the reason why the Civilization series of games moves away from physical wonders as you approach the Modern age and towards "abstract" wonders such as the Cure for Cancer, Universal Sufferage, etc.

      Building the Great Pyramid using ancient technology is impressive - as it either causes modern engineers to wonder how it was built, or c

  • This is pure speculation, but I can't help relating the election of the Christ Redeemer (as others have pointed, a beautiful monument, but not a wonder of the world) to the kind of Brazilian presence I noticed at Orkut, on PicasaWeb and other social sites. They love to make their presence known, they are big fans (torcedores), in a way.

    I also remember how the "best book" election we had a few years ago went to The Lord of the Rings: While I love the book, I'm fairly certain the election had more to do with
  • The real wonders (Score:2, Interesting)

    by el_jake ( 22335 )
    The Universe
    Our Solar System
    Our Sun
    Planet Earth
    The Human Race
    Our children

    Seems like we are extremely short sighted in our localized definition of wonders
  • Gimmick. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by matt me ( 850665 ) on Sunday July 08, 2007 @05:42AM (#19787643)
    This is a worthless gimmick conceived by someone out to make a buck - because the list will influence some tourists' destinations this summer (and I'd wager that some of those on the list paid there way up there) - and lapped up by popular media in the place of surfboarding ferrets. As if there are only 21 valuable places in the world (the shortlist), and an internet vote can provide an unbiased and definitive list of the seven 'greatest'.

    There are thousands of fantastic places in the world. The UN's world heritage sites (660 cultural, 166 natural) are but a start at cataloguing and an attempt to protect them.
  • And if you just can't get enough wonders today, here is another such list: "The 7 Wonders of the Internet." 6&page=0%2C0&t51hb= []
  • I've travelled a bit and have visited most of the new seven wonders...

    I don't know what they judge the wonders by, but a few i'd have on my list are:

      * The Golden Temple, Amritsar, India (for me more beautiful than the Taj mahal)
      * The Golden Gate Bridge
      * Crack De Chevaliers, Syria (huge ruined Crusader fortification)
      * The Potala Palace, Lhasa, Tibet. (Stunning on first sight).
      * The Panama Canal
  • At least Stevie Nicks might live to see these ones.
  • The Pantheon is much more impressive -- in continuous use since 125 AD, *still* the largest unreinforced concrete dome ever built and was the largest dome in the world for 1,600 years!
    • by grumling ( 94709 )
      Word is that Brazil/Rio actually had a little bit of a campaign to get the Christ the Redeemer statue on the list... Getting school children to vote, advertising, etc.

      When I saw the leading "wonders" I passed. My vote would have been any of the great cities of the world. London, being a huge interconnected mass of telecom, roads, trains, and sewers. Amazing!

      Also not on the list:

      1) US interstate highway system - when else in history could you travel non stop from the Atlantic to the Pacific without hardship?
  • What a great scam (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sh4na ( 107124 ) <shana.ufie@gmail. c o m> on Sunday July 08, 2007 @08:43AM (#19788493) Homepage
    There are really some people that are just made to scam everyone else and get rich(er) in the process. Let's see:

    According to the terms of the company that set all this thing up, New Open World Corporation, anyone could vote one time for free, on the internet. You could additionaly vote as much as you wanted via sms. Also according to their terms, they could exclude any votes they wished, at any time.

    If you believe their 100 million votes claim, and if you think that each sms vote costs 50 euro cents (I usually see them more expensive on contests, so the lower price helps offset the free votes), they just made a whooping 50 million euros with the sms voting alone. Now this doesn't count all the private donations they got, most definitely from countries that wanted to make sure their entry made it to the top of the list and stayed there (after all, it is a nice boom for tourism) - I don't know if the countries payed to have their entries on the list per-se, but you can bet the tv stations that syndicated the show payed through their nose for the rights.

    The show in Lisbon cost 12 million euros. We can even raise that figure to 20 million to cover the marketing campaign costs of the last 6 months. Heck, put in 25 million, just to be on the safe side.

    They still made 25 million euros with the sms voting alone. Now how's that for a scam?

  • If the Empire State Building isn't on that list, it's bullshit.

    And if you think it doesn't belong, but have never been to its top for the view, or just seen it dominate the skyline of NYC, even among its wondrous neighbors, a beacon for a hundred miles among the tens of millions of jaded East Coasters, then you should stick with "a beer on the house" as your limit of wonder.

The world is coming to an end--save your buffers!