The New Seven Wonders of the World.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-01-03 09:22am

Could someone explain why something like Stonehenge would be a Wonder of the modern world, other than historical snobbery? Any dipshit construction company with a few machines could make that thing in a day.

That's the point. They don't look impressive by modern standards, but they're far more advanced then the Hoover Dam could ever hope to be because they were by people who didn't have the modern luxuries of powered tools and calculators. Monuments like that truly show what humans are capable of when they apply themselves to a project, not some modern-day by-the-numbers project that'll crumble away in a century and is barely recognised even in it's own time.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-03 10:40am

I have a better list.

-The Bell Rock Lighthouse
-The Great Eastern
-Bazalgette's London sewers
-The Transcontinental Railway
-The Brooklyn Bridge
-The Panama Canal
-The Hoover Dam

They are all remarkable pieces of engineering by some of the greatest minds the world has seen. Much as I like the original 7 Wonders, the Industrial Revolution ones and their stories put me in awe.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-03 10:55am

Bounty wrote:
Could someone explain why something like Stonehenge would be a Wonder of the modern world, other than historical snobbery? Any dipshit construction company with a few machines could make that thing in a day.
That's the point. They don't look impressive by modern standards, but they're far more advanced then the Hoover Dam could ever hope to be because they were by people who didn't have the modern luxuries of powered tools and calculators. Monuments like that truly show what humans are capable of when they apply themselves to a project, not some modern-day by-the-numbers project that'll crumble away in a century and is barely recognised even in it's own time.

That's fucking idiotic; it's like giving the science award to the retarded kid because his popsicle-stick teepee was really cool ... for a retard. If someone asks what the Wonders of the World are, why the fuck should they be graded by effort rather than results?

Modern engineering projects show what humans are truly capable of when they apply minds and organizational skills to a project. Anyone who thinks it's easy to build something like the Hoover dam is a drooling moron.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2006-01-03 11:01am

Does anyone know what the original list was before it was shortened to 21 Wonders? I looked on the website but I couldn't find it [I found plenty of 504 errors though - does anyone else have that problem?]

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-01-03 11:06am

That's fucking idiotic; it's like giving the science award to the retarded kid because his popsicle-stick teepee was really cool ... for a retard. If someone asks what the Wonders of the World are, why the fuck should they be graded by effort rather than results?

Because by that standard, the Toronto Skydome would count as a world wonder. It seats more people then Stonehenge and has *gaps* a roof !

I was wrong about the Hoover Dam, though; A bit of googling shows that it has had greater importance then I thought, and it does deserve to be on the list. Still, to throw out Stonehenge simply because it isn't as advanced as modern buildings is just wrong.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-03 11:08am

If we're going for modern, I'm not including Stonehenge, which is at the very least a millenia older than I am. The oldest in my list dates back to the early 19th century. But my list simply rocks, because you cannot deny the greatness of the projects involved, even if some don't exist like they previously did.

Crabbypants · Post by **Crabbypants** » 2006-01-03 11:27am

I couldn't access the list - 'net acting weird right now.

Is the space station on the list? Hacky and juryrigged it may be but still, it's a station, in space.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-03 11:28am

Crabbypants wrote:I couldn't access the list - 'net acting weird right now.

Is the space station on the list? Hacky and juryrigged it may be but still, it's a station, in space.

Which one?

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-01-03 11:29am

Skylab and the Russian statiosn burned, so I assume she means ISS.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-03 11:38am

Which isn't much of a wonder in the technical sense, more in how the hell it survived at all given how overbudget it was and how little they finally got into it.

Crabbypants · Post by **Crabbypants** » 2006-01-03 11:48am

Listen, I adore SW and ST as much as the rest of you but they're pure fantasy. The space station is real, in orbit above us right now. How is that not wonderful, in every sense of the word?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-01-03 11:55am

Here's my list for 7 Modern Wonders:

7 Firth of Forth Bridge. Still in use, still amazing.

6 DC-3, more than 70 years of introducing air travel to the world and it's still going strong with an admirable safety record.

5 Hoover Dam, not the biggest, but maybe the most impressive. And the conditions under which it was built were hellish, just as a bonus to it's cool factor.

4 The Empire State Building. Again, not the biggest, but it's icon factor and influence on all that have followed put it at the top.

3 The New Oakland Bay Bridge, if it's succesful when completed.

2 Voyagers 1 and 2; as of now, humanity's biggest physical impact on the universe at large and probably our most long-lived artifacts.

1 The Apollo Program. Man on Moon.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-03 03:29pm

Bounty wrote:
That's fucking idiotic; it's like giving the science award to the retarded kid because his popsicle-stick teepee was really cool ... for a retard. If someone asks what the Wonders of the World are, why the fuck should they be graded by effort rather than results?
Because by that standard, the Toronto Skydome would count as a world wonder. It seats more people then Stonehenge and has *gaps* a roof !

Yes, it is far more deserving of "World Wonder" status than Stonehenge. Your point?

I was wrong about the Hoover Dam, though; A bit of googling shows that it has had greater importance then I thought, and it does deserve to be on the list. Still, to throw out Stonehenge simply because it isn't as advanced as modern buildings is just wrong.

Ah yes, I see; it's the "because I say so" argument. Grow the fuck up. What makes it deserving of World Wonder status? Size? Nope, it's not that big. Difficulty? Nope, unless you use the trick of handicapping for ignorance, by which token a sandcastle made by a retard might be a Wonder of the World. What is your reasoning, besides "I say so?"

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-01-03 03:31pm

I've always understood that they were considered Wonders because the results, while not always practical, were atypical of capabilities. It's certainly impressive to make Stonehendge, even if we have better calenders these days.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-03 03:35pm

Impressive because of the handicapping perhaps, but if you're compiling a new list of "Wonders of the World", there's no reason to include it. There are vastly more impressive structures out there, and yes, they were made by the numbers. That's what makes them superior; they demonstrate mankind's emerging mastery of mathematics and science, in the form of modern engineering.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-01-03 03:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:Impressive because of the handicapping perhaps, but if you're compiling a new list of "Wonders of the World", there's no reason to include it. There are vastly more impressive structures out there, and yes, they were made by the numbers. That's what makes them superior; they demonstrate mankind's emerging mastery of mathematics and science, in the form of modern engineering.

This is true in that context. I always assumed they would continue to be grouped by 'Age'. IE, Wonders of the Ancient World, the Industrial World, etc. For example, the first large scale printing operation is nothing special now, but it's a worthy thing to examine because it was a major step forward for it's time, and became a major influence on the world.

But if one is merely going What Is A Wonder Of The World, Regardless Of Age, you are quite right.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-01-03 03:47pm

Yes, but you can't discount something that was amazingly difficult and represented a triumph at the time simply because its easy now.

I don't think Stonehenge should be on the list as there are far more impressive variants on the "monumental calendar" theme out there. By the same measure though, I think the "Wong scale" for determining a ranking for such things is flawed.

"they demonstrate mankind's emerging mastery of mathematics and science, in the form of modern engineering."

That's great, but that also means that the house that I'm currently sitting in is a wonder. As is the fan I've got sitting next to me in the room.

Wonder's should certainly demonstrate an emerging mastery of engineering and construction capacity, but that alone cannot be the criteria. Its one of the reasons why I don't think the Sydney Opera House should be on the list, its a big, impressive building, but its by no means a wonder. An icon yes, but a wonder?

All of the 7 wonders of the industrial age deserve strong consideration, as they were without a doubt magnificent achievements as well as being exceptional monuments to perserverance and human capacity. For modern wonders I'd put in things like the internet, space programs and one that I really feel has been overlooked - the nuclear bomb.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-01-03 04:21pm

By the same logic, the Great Eastern should be ignored given we can build the likes of Queen Mary 2 now. The fact that we can surpass an achievement from the past today, which should be damn obvious anyway, is beside the point. The issue here is whether it warrants the prestige of being recognised a wonder, something that was deemed impossible to pull off or resulted in a creation that was revolutionary or otherwise remarkable. There are a great many examples from the past that fill this category, yet would also be classed as simple things given modern technology.

I wouldn't include Stonehenge for modern stuff anyway, but when it comes down to that and structures like the Giza Pyramids and so on, regardless of what we can do now, they are incredible.

Though what is even better would be old creations that haven't been surpassed today because they are still the best thing for the job. The London sewer system would fit this easily (especially since it also led to a revolution in microbiology practically becoming modern and miasma being cast off as pseudoscience).

I base my list off the book and series by Deborah Cadbury anyway. Constructs or one off vehicles as opposed to a mass produced plane or something intangible like the Internet, not that they aren't amazing. The original wonders were this way.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2006-01-03 04:34pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:If you want to represent America, do the Internet. It was invented by the Americans and has truly changed the world. I mean seriously, free and easy access to porn. Clearly the Internet is Man's greatest creation.

Yeah but we're talking about something being built. But if you're looking for something done by America, that's easy. The Panama Canal. Not only did we succeed where the French(?) failed, we did it in a quarter the time.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-01-03 04:36pm

Not to mention the other medical breakthroughs made due to the need for them during work on teh canal.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2006-01-03 04:50pm

Seems to me that Wonders could even be divided into categories, such as...

Civil Engineering Wonders
-Grand Coulee Dam
-Great Wall of China
-Chicago Sears Tower
-Panama Canal

Religious Wonders
-Hagia Sophia
-Dome of the Rock
-Stonehenge

Cultural Wonders
-Globe Theatre
-Hanging Gardens

Technological/Scientific Wonders
-Internet
-Apollo Program

Personally I would call something a Wonder of the World if it's the FIRST of its kind, if it greatly affects lots of people, or it's an exceptionally costly or difficult undertaking (such as the Apollo Program or the Great Wall).

LeftWingExtremist · Post by **LeftWingExtremist** » 2006-01-09 02:55am

Could someone explain why something like Stonehenge would be a Wonder of the modern world, other than historical snobbery? Any dipshit construction company with a few machines could make that thing in a day.

I think that a tad unfair. It was (possibly) the first large scale structure in the world and is an important landmark in the history human kind, Its a bit unfair to consider it other than a great piece of work. It must have been a great acheivement to get together a bunch of (rather) backward people to work together to build such monument.

my ones would have to be
1- great wall of china: through simple scale i think this is impressive. ingenious in the design.
2 - the great pyramid: do i really need to tell anyone why.
3 - the acropolis - engineering brilliance.
4 - pharos: god i would have loved to see that. (I know its not on the list)
5 - taj mahul: should have a mention (i was there so i might be a little biased)
6 - stonehenge: i've already made my argument
7 - im not sure what else to be honest

i may be a little biased to the wonders i mostly know about but this is what i think should be there.

call me unpatriotic i honestly dont see how the opera house could be considered a wonder. yes it is a wonderful landmark but i dont think it can be considered a wonder (i even think the bridge is possibly a greater building).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-09 10:20am

weemadando wrote:Yes, but you can't discount something that was amazingly difficult and represented a triumph at the time simply because its easy now.

I don't think Stonehenge should be on the list as there are far more impressive variants on the "monumental calendar" theme out there. By the same measure though, I think the "Wong scale" for determining a ranking for such things is flawed.

"they demonstrate mankind's emerging mastery of mathematics and science, in the form of modern engineering."

That's great, but that also means that the house that I'm currently sitting in is a wonder. As is the fan I've got sitting next to me in the room.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. How the fuck did you interpret that out of my definition of a modern Wonder of the World, since neither of those things are remarkable by modern standards?

Wonder's should certainly demonstrate an emerging mastery of engineering and construction capacity, but that alone cannot be the criteria. Its one of the reasons why I don't think the Sydney Opera House should be on the list, its a big, impressive building, but its by no means a wonder. An icon yes, but a wonder?

Of course it's not a wonder, because it's not some spectacular feat. "Looks cool" is not what I was talking about.

All of the 7 wonders of the industrial age deserve strong consideration, as they were without a doubt magnificent achievements as well as being exceptional monuments to perserverance and human capacity. For modern wonders I'd put in things like the internet, space programs and one that I really feel has been overlooked - the nuclear bomb.

The nuclear bomb is a good choice, I agree. The part I can't figure out is where you think examples like that somehow contradict anything I said.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-01-09 10:34am

I was always under the impression that Stone Henge was a "wonder" because no one knows where they got the rock from or how exactly they moved them. There weren't any mountains within a large radius, so it would have required massive amounts of manpower and time to move.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-01-09 10:53am

Durandal wrote:I was always under the impression that Stone Henge was a "wonder" because no one knows where they got the rock from or how exactly they moved them. There weren't any mountains within a large radius, so it would have required massive amounts of manpower and time to move.

Just on a lark, I went and looked up the word "Wonder" and the noun form is defined as something that elicits "astonishment" or "admiration".

So, when one thinks about it, one's list of "Wonders" really says more about what you as a person find admirable or astonishing than it does about the Wonders themselves. "Wonder" is literally defined in terms of the viewer's subjective reaction.

So it would appear that I find marvels of engineering and science to be admirable and/or astonishing, while others find marvels of primitive human back-breaking labour to be admirable and/or astonishing.