It takes a brave man to take a shot at a national treasure, and they don’t come any more treasured than David Attenborough, so hats off to Martin Hughes-Games for bravery (Why Planet Earth II should have been taxed, 2 January). But I fear he’s wrong. He says programmes like Planet Earth II lull us “into a false sense of security” as wildlife species are decimated across the globe. That is almost certainly correct, but one thing we’ve learned from last year’s EU referendum is that ordinary people just don’t listen to “experts” lecturing them about unfolding, manmade disasters. Planet Earth II, with its beauty and grandeur, and, yes, entertainment value, takes a subtle approach worthy of the most sophisticated advertising campaign: it says, look at this marvellous planet, do you really want to allow its destruction?

Peter Lyth

Hockerton, Nottinghamshire

• At last, someone has dared to say it. I strongly agree with Martin Hughes-Games with reference to the series Planet Earth I and II. Presenting these programmes was a man who has integrity, presence and an attractive air of authority. People admire him and listen to him. Sir David Attenborough was (and is) in an almost unique position to tell it as it is, not how we would all like it to be. These nature programmes were brilliantly produced with extremely skilful photography and, yes, it was great entertainment. But unfortunately it told a very cosy story with scant allusion to what is really happening. Ignorance, greed, unsupportable population growth of our species and a curious assumption that we can trash the planet without consequences. There is only one point on which I would disagree with Hughes-Games. In 100 years’ time, I don’t believe anyone will be thinking or caring about wildlife. By then, it may well be apparent that the journey towards our own extinction had begun in earnest. Probably far too late to exit la-la land.

Carol Knight

Tisbury, Wiltshire

• Martin Hughes-Games’ claim that Planet Earth II has done nothing to further global conservation gets to the heart of the problem with the BBC Natural History Unit, that its programmes are made with money, ratings and global sales in mind rather than conservation. It is a sad fact that in over 50 years of making wonderful wildlife programmes, it has never made a globally successful big budget series about our destruction of the natural world, despite the unit generating huge profits for the BBC. This has been a big disappointment to the global conservation movement who regularly bring the issue up privately but are reluctant to criticise the BBC publicly. In September the BBC appointed Julian Hector as the head of the unit, a producer who has made his name making very traditional wildlife programmes but who also made the Ivory Wars with Panorama, a hard-hitting programme about the decline of the elephant. It is exactly this type of unique partnership that the BBC Natural History Unit now needs to invest in, and to make it happen conservation organisations should write to Hector in support of Hughes-Games’ idea of a “conservation tax” on its programmes.

Nicholas Milton

Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire

• Congratulations to Martin Hughes-Games for putting his head above the parapet in criticising the wonderfully produced and fascinating Attenborough series as “escapist wildlife fantasy”. I have been a professional biologist for 40 years, but am still not sure what “wildlife” is. I think it harks back to Rousseau and romantic ideas of primitiveness. There was just about no ecosystem unaffected by humans before anthropogenic climate change came as a “double whammy”. I have also occasionally criticised the philosophy behind these series to my biologist colleagues, and am generally faced with disbelief.

My criticism is different. The programmes follow the Animal Planet view of biodiversity and nature, where living things are almost entirely made up of large animals and land plants. The vast majority of the genetic biodiversity on earth is microscopic, and the former view is overwhelmingly widespread but completely skewed. Of the dozens of major groups of living things, animals are one and land plants are part of another.

I would like to offer two sets of New Year challenges.

First, to David Attenborough and his team, to produce a similarly wonderful series on Microscopic Life on Earth.

Second, to top billionaire entrepreneurs and futurologists (Mr Branson and Mr Musk, are you listening?). We can now buy simple “digital microscopes” for about £100 that can easily view insect parts. Within the next couple of years can you make widely available a digital compound microscope for less than £50, which can view single-celled organisms? Every home should have one. That can be followed a few years later with a home DNA sequencer, so that the 2027 Christmas party game can be: how many different types of living things do you have in your kitchen/plantpots/toenails/pond?

John J Bolton

Professor of biological sciences, University of Cape Town

• So Martin Hughes-Games has gained publicity for himself by traducing David Attenborough: how shabby. Having just watched Islands on DVD, I hardly recognise the picture Hughes-Games gives. The subtext throughout David Attenborough’s commentary is the fragility of all ecosystems and, in the case of an island crab population decimated by ants, he actually states in so many words that humans have introduced the problem and will have to find the solution. .



Joanna Bazley

London

• Martin Hughes-Games cites humankind’s insatiable need for space as the prime factor behind wildlife extinctions. It was a pity that neither his article or your accompanying story on the same day linked it with humankind’s equivalent need for contraception to be freely available. Impoverished countries cannot become better off while their birthrates are too high. Some of our own reluctance to accept refugees surely has to do with our own loss of countryside and wildlife.

We should look to see, first, whether planned cuts to local authority finding threaten our own family planning services; second, whether all charities serving third world countries include it where relevant; and, thirdly, how much more international aid could be given to it and maternal and child health services.

It is not often that so many problems could be eased by one, and such an easily provided, solution.

Helen Haran

St Albans, Hertfordshire

• Martin Hughes-Games makes an important point about the “fantasy” view of the natural world. I would like to add two points. If programme-makers are going to adopt a more realistic and pessimistic tone at times, then please also tell us what we as individuals can do to help. I can no longer watch natural history programmes because I feel hopeless and helpless, which isn’t a very productive situation. I’d also like to make the rather obvious point that it’s not just cheetahs and giraffes that we should worry about. Each time we in the UK turn grass, soil and woodland into brick and concrete we too leave less room for the bees, rooks, moles and their food supplies.

Neil Blessitt

Bristol

• Martin Hughes-Games is extremely critical of the BBC production Planet Earth II for not emphasising the disastrous worldwide mass extinction taking place. He makes the extraordinary claim that these programmes are “a significant contributor to the planet-wide extinction of wildlife we’re presiding over”.

There is no scientific evidence to support this statement. Others claim that such amazing programmes can increase people’s interest in conservation but Mr Hughes-Games says that “the scientific evidence shows this is nonsense”.

The idea that blame for the complex issue of destruction of habitat and the loss of species can be attributed to TV wildlife shows is in itself a profoundly unscientific concept. This is at best, speculation on his part.

In fact, most wildlife productions over the past few decades have more than emphasised the depressing loss of our natural world. So why does it continue? Perhaps just giving people depressing statistics about this disaster has not been helpful. Making them feel guilty, miserable and helpless may in fact demotivate and cause loss of interest.

It seems to me that to enable people to act, they need to be inspired and Planet Earth II certainly achieved that.

After the inspiration, you can then start to mobilise. Only with positive messages can we turn this around.

Dr Maureen Tilford

Norwich

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters