If this prevents one quarter of deforestation it would still be a massive help. Furthermore, the agriculture- lumber difference in deforestation is not that cle

If this prevents one quarter of deforestation it would still be a massive help. Furthermore, the agriculture- lumber difference in deforestation is not that clear cut. When some disgusting criminal in Brazil cuts down a bunch of rainforest for pasture he is also taking into account the resulting lumber in his profit plans. In fact the lumber is probably a big part of the criminal enterprise because it provides an immediate profit whereas raising cows provides profit only after a couple of years. And I am sure our criminal needs the immediate cash flows to pay off Bolsonaro and other corrupt politicians and to hire thugs to chase away protesters and natives. So having lab made wood on massive scale will definitely significantly help with deforestation even the so called agricultural one. Cultured meats or even vegetarian meat substitutes would help as well, but one does not prevent the other and thus one should not be used as an argument against the other. Furthermore, cultured wood should be easier to make than cultured meats. Nobody has to eat the wood, so you do not have to get the taste of the wood right. You just need to get the correct mechanical properties right, which should be much easier. Generally I am very puzzled by this type of arguments against environmental improvements: A is a bad idea because B would make a bigger difference. Well if A would make a significant difference, and A is not in conflict with B, than why not do both?