I appreciate the idea here, but it's really not what the article is discussing. The article is talking about items only previously obtainable via harvesting na

I appreciate the idea here, but it's really not what the article is discussing. The article is talking about items only previously obtainable via harvesting naturally occurring items, for example, diamonds. Then suddenly because some smart people worked on it for a bit, we had lab made diamonds. Or how purple dye used to be a challenge. Despite the prevalence and usefulness of artifical otions for many formerly naturally occurring items, there are still huge pushes and even social stigmas for not having "authentic" versions of these materials. I understand how you're making the comparison here, but you're conflating the topics. This isn't about verifying authenticity in the case of the materials, it's whether or not a diamond made in the ground is intrinsically worth more than one made in a lab, and why so many people feel better about the one from out of the ground.