If every civilization acted randomly and had random bonuses, there would be no point in having different civilizations. It would be Beyond Earth.
That's not what the OP said and you know it. Why the uncalled for harshness?
I am probably in the minority on this topic in that I dislike uniques. They are hard to balance, they force you down a specific path, the AI doesn't know how to use them. I used to play with random civs before Civ5 - now I don't because so many of the civs are unfun to play with because of their uniques.
And on the argument that uniques=replayability let me just say this: I know several people who still play Civilization II. They don't seem to see the problem.
I liked the notion somebody had here that Wonders were supposed to fulfil the role of unique abilities in earlier instalments of the series. This worked, well, wonderfully.
There were few of them, and you fought for the ones that supported your playstyle. I have been playing Civ since the original instalment and the increasing number but diminishing uniqueness of wonders was one of the trends I hated. But I guess having a gazillion wonders is a foregone conclusion these days.
I liked the idea posted in this thread that uniques should be earned in-game. The problem with it is that it would duplicate what a lot of other systems already do: wonders and religion are already a way to acquire unique bonuses for your civilization.
On the other hand, going too far down the "geography is destiny" route would make Civ an unenjoyable game. Start in Australia? You might just as well restart because you will never discover agriculture. Start in the Americas? Restart as well, because your Mexican crops won't work in the jungle so you can't expand. Civ is never going to be a Guns, Germs and Steel simulation, and I'm fine with that. But I like the fact they are trying to include some of the related ideas in a way.