Acharya Prashant addresses the question of whether eating animals is the same as eating plants. He begins by pointing out that, in general, human beings are not cannibals; they do not eat other men and women. He questions why, if eating flesh is acceptable, it is not alright to eat human flesh. A line is drawn between the human being and the animal. The human being is not eaten because they are highly conscious. The speaker then asks the questioner to consider drawing a line between an apple and an animal, noting that everyone already draws a line by not eating flesh wherever it is available, such as a defenseless newborn human baby. He explains that even habitual flesh-eaters do not eat human beings because humans are conscious and hungry for liberation. Consciousness is our only hope and savior, and therefore, one does not want to disrespect consciousness by killing a conscious being. Even the most ardent supporters of flesh-eating do not become cannibals; they draw a line. The speaker then asks, if a line is already being drawn, why must only human beings be beyond it? He suggests that one should be more discreet and draw the line with more compassion and consciousness, keeping animals outside the edible territory as well. This would mean one would still be killing something to eat, such as plants. He suggests that one should try to eat without killing a plant, or at least minimize it. He acknowledges that even with the best efforts, some killing of plants might be necessary for human consumption, which means something conscious is still being killed. However, this is the maximum one can do. He explains that this is not violence because it is unavoidable due to the body's constitution. Citing the Bhagavad Gita, he refers to this as 'akarma' (non-action), something that happens without deliberate intent. Just as breathing kills microorganisms, which is unavoidable and not considered violence, the necessary consumption of plants is similar. Therefore, he concludes that eating an apple and eating an animal are not the same, and if one argues they are, then by the same logic, eating an animal and a human being are also the same. If one does not eat a human being, then one should extend the same logic to not eating an animal.