[strken]

That's not true. The concept of a natural wonder is ruining natural wonders.

In Australia, there is a big rock called Uluru. It is so popular it has its own airstrip, and about quarter of a million people come from all around the world to see it each year.

North of Uluru a fair way, there's a rock formation called the Bungle Bungles. About 25000 people come to see the national park it's in yearly. It is, according to my biases, better in almost every way than Uluru, and sees a tenth of the traffic.

I think that if nobody had a checklist of "natural wonders", they'd have to actually explore an area to find things that excited them, and while they'd have a similar short-list in each area, most people would have a different winner.

Condensing an area into a single natural wonder doesn't do the rest of the wonders justice, I feel.

[pseudolus]

With respect to Uluru it's also worth mentioning that the Aboriginal people consider it to be sacred and don't particularly appreciate many of the tourists who elect to climb over it. From wikipedia

"The local Aṉangu do not climb Uluru because of its great spiritual significance. They request that visitors do not climb the rock, partly due to the path crossing a sacred traditional Dreamtime track, and also due to a sense of responsibility for the safety of visitors. The visitors guide says 'the climb is not prohibited, but we prefer that, as a guest on Aṉangu land, you will choose to respect our law and culture by not climbing'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru