Sibling Science

I found your cover story on birth order fascinating [Oct. 29]. For many years, I have attempted to interpret myriad human actions through the filter of birth order. Although I understand a theory is far from a catchall answer to psychological mysteries, I believe this one explains a large part of our behavior. Thank you for publishing the latest research.
Kathryn Bridges Pulliam, MOBILE, ALA., U.S.

I have three sons, so I read your article on birth order with interest. Example after example that you supplied showed that upbringing and parents’ expectations influence children more than birth order does. I have made a conscious effort never to compare my sons, and I have encouraged each to pursue his own dreams. Each boy has very different aspirations.
Kate Robinson, LITTLE EGG HARBOR, N.J., U.S.

Reading your report was like reading a list of the personality traits associated with each sign of the zodiac. Hitting upon one so-called truth (e.g., Leos are generous) does not make the whole concept true. As for using historical figures and celebrities to prove the theory, I’ll bet that for every person who fits, there are 10 who don’t. Life throws too many variables into the birth-order mix for there to be any hard-and-fast rules. Physical and mental disability, family finances, divorce — even looks and talent — play a part in the development of a child’s personality. Birth order may be a factor, but I don’t believe it’s the most important one.
Michele McCall, AUSTIN, TEXAS, U.S.

I searched for some mention of psychology’s giants who first theorized about the behavioral differences among siblings. You didn’t mention, for example, Alfred Adler, a contemporary of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, who wrote extensively that birth order predicts personality. Nor did you mention the modern, highly influential ideas of Virginia Satir, who recognized that firstborn, middle, youngest and only children each have characteristic ways of forming relationships, taking responsibility and responding to authority.
Charles Kaplan, MERIDEN, CONN., U.S.

The studies of birth order are too simplistic because they fail to account for an important environmental influence: parents. My younger brother and I are mostly the reverse of the stereotypical firstborn and second-born/last-born. I am more independent than my brother and led a more adventurous childhood. I take after our father, who was a college dropout and more creative. My brother takes after our mother, who was mathematically inclined. Birth order is not the determining factor it once was.
Gary Ostrick, LOS ANGELES

Marital Misery
“The Honeymoon’s over” reported on the 30,000 or more Indian women who have been abandoned by émigré husbands [Oct. 22]. But it takes two to tango, and not every Indian bride is innocent or naive. There are cases of Indian husbands becoming victims at the hands of their self-centered, manipulative brides. Some women enter into overseas marriages when they have a boyfriend living in the foreign country of their destination. They use the unsuspecting husbands as a way to join these boyfriends. Or they use the husband for professional advancement or to transplant their siblings and parents from India. And when marriages go bad, the legal systems in most countries favor women, while men get a raw deal.
Sriram Srinivasan, BANGALORE, INDIA

An Expat’s Lament
As a Burmese citizen living abroad, I have been following the events in my native country closely [Oct. 22]. In 1988 I personally experienced the brutality of the government. It is appalling what a government can do to its own people. But the ’88 uprising was quickly forgotten by the international community. I am again worried that Burma’s problems will be soon forgotten. I was not there in person this time, but the images of the monks and nuns demonstrating on the streets of Rangoon made me cry. Religion is all that the Burmese have had since the military came to power in 1962. And being a Buddhist, I consider the government’s mistreatment of the monks beyond disgusting.
Ma Hnin Thurein, ALMER ÍA, SPAIN

Green Crusaders
I read your special report but did not find many heroes [Oct. 29]. I did, however, find many people who are prepared to destroy the economy under the pretext of protecting the environment. Near my former home town, in western New South Wales, there is a new wind farm. I have passed it at least six times yet never seen the windmill blades turning. The area is not particularly windy, and in winter dull days without sun are frequent. The only consistent source of power in places like this is coal. Nuclear power is an alternative, but our environmental heroes are averse to this. My heroes are the men and women who have contributed to the high standard of living all Westerners — environmentalists included — enjoy.
J.F. Carney, NEWCASTLE, AUSTRALIA

As a youth of the 21st century, I think we are in big trouble. The things done by our ancestors over the past 300 years have already taken an irreversible toll on the environment. The best thing we can do is follow gurus like Al Gore and try to limit the damage and prevent any further harm.
Suraj Banjade, PALMERSTON NORTH, NEW ZEALAND

Your special issue was a celebration of some wonderful people and their endeavors to improve the world, something we should all be trying to do. I was dismayed, however, to see Al Gore among them. His movie An Inconvenient Truth has generated a most convenient hysteria over the global-warming issue. As you noted in your Briefing section, a British High Court judge has ruled that there were nine “significant errors” in the film, errors which should be taken seriously. Criticism of anthropogenic global-warming theory by a large number of reputable scientists is given scant regard in the media. Perhaps this belief has become too entrenched in political dogma for their voices to be heard.
Paula Stephen, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

Lauding high-profile “Heroes of the Environment” is one thing. But when the worst of the world’s pollution is caused by industrial activity, why not identify the movers and shakers who are pressuring business to lift its game? 
 The world guru on environmental accounting, Prof. Rob Gray, of the University of St Andrews, Scotland, would be a good start.
David Macklin, ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA

Your special issue on environmental heroes made me sigh in disbelief. While many of the heroes were worthy of mention for their work in combating pollution, including Al Gore in the lineup after some of his convenient untruths were identified in a British court shows that TIME is not the objective newsmagazine it should be. By perpetuating the myth that global climate is something we humans can alter, you do a disservice to your readers, who would prefer to be informed in an objective manner. The Earth’s climate has been changing forever, as a review of history shows. Fluctuations in solar activity, changes in atmospheric pressure patterns and ocean currents all contribute to weather and thus to climate variations. So-called greenhouse gases have little or nothing to do with it; in fact the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor.
Dennis Terry, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND

Self-Inflicted Wounds
In the past several months, the west has so antagonized Russian President Vladimir Putin that it has pushed him into the arms of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [Oct. 29]. The West is responsible for cementing the two formerly less-than-cordial nations. The worst nightmare would be if Russia goes all out to help Iran secure an arsenal of nuclear weapons. That would be a global debacle.
Zi-zenn Chen, SYDNEY

The Iranian problem was caused by the American invasion of Iraq. The U.S. thereby eliminated Iran’s greatest enemy and destabilized the region, giving Iran a free hand to cause trouble in the Middle East. I believe Arnold J. Toynbee warned that by threatening a people, you cause them to unite and become stronger.
Cornelis Vrolijk, THE HAGUE

Grilling a General
Joe Klein eloquently expressed his disgust over the General David Petraeus dog-and-pony show before Congress [Sept. 24]. But Klein failed to mention the real reason the Senators didn’t press Petraeus for legitimate answers: the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about is a sinister weave of self-interest involving the nation’s corporate, military and political powerhouses.
Ken Hicks, LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, PA., U.S.