Acharya Prashant addresses several common arguments used to justify meat-eating. The first argument is that plants also have life and feel pain. He clarifies that while plants are conscious and can react, they lack a central nervous system and therefore do not have the faculty to experience pain. He explains that all beings, including plants, animals, and humans, exist on a continuous scale of consciousness. Plants have the lowest level, followed by animals, and then humans at the highest level. The higher the level of consciousness, the more valuable the being and the greater its responsibility. He defines violence as any act that lowers the level of consciousness, whether one's own or another's. Consequently, there is a hierarchy of violence. Killing a plant is a smaller violence compared to killing an animal, which has a higher level of consciousness. Killing a human is the greatest violence. The principle to follow is the preservation of consciousness. Therefore, the argument that killing a plant is the same as killing an animal is flawed. He also notes that killing plants is often a necessity for survival, and violence is only considered as such when there is an option to avoid it. Furthermore, consuming fruits and many vegetables does not kill the plant and, in fact, helps in seed dispersal, which is what the plant intends. Another argument addressed is that the human body is capable of digesting meat. Acharya Prashant counters this by stating that humans are not animals. While an animal's primary rule is to eat whatever it can digest, a human, as a being of consciousness, has a greater responsibility. The rules that apply to animals do not apply to humans. A human's ability to digest something does not make its consumption morally right; for instance, the body can digest stolen food, but theft is still wrong. Humans are the most evolved beings on Earth, making them the guardians and trustees of the planet and all its creatures. This responsibility is to protect the lesser-conscious beings, not to exploit them. Using one's strength and intelligence to harm those weaker in consciousness is a sign of cowardice, not power. Finally, he refutes the economic and environmental arguments in favor of meat-eating. He presents data showing that a meat-eater's diet requires significantly more land, water, and energy than a vegetarian's. He points out that a large percentage of the world's grain is fed to livestock for meat production, while a fraction of that grain could end world hunger. He also highlights that meat-eating is a leading cause of climate change, which in turn causes massive economic losses, far outweighing any profits from the meat industry. He concludes that meat-eating is a major contributor to global poverty and environmental destruction, and the arguments supporting it are based on ignorance and vested interests.