Acharya Prashant addresses the argument that plants also have life, which is often used to justify the consumption of meat and dairy. He begins by acknowledging that it is true that plants and trees possess a minimum level of consciousness. However, he explains that being born as a human being means that a certain minimum level of violence is unfortunately unavoidable. For instance, simply by breathing, we kill microbes, and by existing as a body, we cause some harm. This unavoidable violence, he says, is what Shri Krishna refers to as 'akarma'—an action that happens on its own. Therefore, the issue is not an absolute binary of committing violence versus not committing violence, as some level is inevitable for survival. The real question is about minimizing violence and causing the least possible harm. The principle, he elaborates, should be to harm the consciousness that is at the lowest level. He presents a hierarchy of consciousness, asking the questioner that if she were a non-vegetarian and had to choose between eating a human and a goat, she would choose the goat because a human's consciousness is higher. Applying the same logic, he argues that between a goat and an apple, one should choose the apple because a goat's consciousness is higher than a plant's. The goal is to consume the life form with the least consciousness. He further refutes the argument that vegetarians also kill plants by highlighting the inefficiency of animal agriculture. To produce one kilogram of goat meat, the goat must consume 30 to 40 kilograms of grain. Thus, a meat-eater is responsible for killing 40 times more plants indirectly. If one truly loves plants, the best way to save them is to stop eating meat. Acharya Prashant also dismisses the use of religion and rituals to justify animal slaughter, stating that those who do so are ignorant of their religion's core teachings. No religion was founded on enmity towards animals; their purpose is to bring peace and save one from worldly troubles, not to promote animal slaughter. He addresses the hopelessness felt by activists by advising them to remember two things: the grim reality of the ongoing slaughter, and the positive impact of their own actions in saving lives, which should serve as encouragement. He concludes by stating that a human's defining characteristic is higher consciousness, which includes compassion. If one lacks compassion and is not concerned about a suffering animal, they are human only in body, not in spirit. True respect for a cow, for example, would be to grant it freedom, not to exploit it for milk against its will.