The argument could also be made, using the principles in the "what are the
munitions maker-workers to do for money if we stop producing mega-death" that
what is called the holocaust couldn't be stopped because so many jobs
depended on the program to murder all the jews in europe.

I'm certain you wouldn't make such an argument, but it is caught up in the
seeming inevitability of what is, according to that notion. That is the
problem, that people are doing all sorts of things to survive, that are
costly to even more people, including them.

Of course it is naive to expect that, say, loggers can just stop logging in
order to save nature. Some unfortunate environmentalists may think that
simply, but we should not. They need to survive, of course, but why must
they survive by helping to ravage nature? Where does it say that a man or
woman can only thrive by working in a munitions plant? The system that has
us thinking such things, that is the problem.

For an extremely quick and slightly over-simplified solution, consider this:
if we laid off every worker involved in creating products that have nothing
to do with preserving life and making it better, and paid them-with public
funds-the same salary they were making, we'd be much better off. In other
words, the guy making megadeath continues getting his paycheck, but he no
longer creates megadeath. If necessary, he sits on his ass and does nothing
until we/he find something useful for him to do with his life.

 But in order to do that, we have to affect some serious political changes
first.

fs