Acharya Prashant addresses the argument that a shift to plant-based milk would cause widespread unemployment in the dairy industry. He acknowledges the concern but asserts that the employment argument is not absolute and can be stretched to absurd extremes. He provides an analogy, stating that if employment were the sole justification for an activity, then even arresting pickpockets would be questionable as it would render them unemployed. While clarifying that he is not equating dairy farmers with criminals, he poses a fundamental question: are all means of employment permissible, legally and ethically? He argues that if earning money is the ultimate justification, then many unethical activities would have to be allowed. Just because an activity yields money for someone does not make the activity itself okay. He explains that whenever a corrective or progressive step is taken, such as switching to a greener technology, the argument of job loss is always raised. This happens because the losses are often localized, immediate, and visible, making for a compelling story. In contrast, the gains from such a progressive shift are usually long-term, scattered, and less visible, even though they lead to an overall increase in the economy's efficiency and create new employment opportunities elsewhere. The problem is that the localized loss has a human face, which gets highlighted, while the distributed, long-term gains do not make for a sensational story. Acharya Prashant illustrates this with a hypothetical scenario where one person loses ₹10,000, but a thousand others each gain ₹50, resulting in a net economic gain of ₹40,000. He suggests that this net gain could be used to subsidize the person who faced the loss, ensuring everyone benefits from the progressive change. Applying this to the plant-based industry, he believes government subsidies are not even necessary because plant-based products are inherently more economical to produce. He mentions his experience mentoring firms in this sector and notes how inexpensive these products can be, criticizing the current high pricing of some brands which limits market expansion. Furthermore, he addresses concerns about genetically modified (GM) soy, viewing it as a business opportunity for entrepreneurs to produce and market natural, organic alternatives. He concludes that the economic, health, and spiritual arguments all favor plant-based products. Given that people care about their finances, they will naturally adopt these alternatives, especially if they are made affordable. He also notes that many eateries are already using tofu instead of paneer (Indian cheese) because it is cheaper and, when prepared well, tastes just as good, indicating a silent shift is already underway driven by economics.