Do David Attenborough’s programmes help or hinder the natural world? | Letters

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