Do you put forward the same argument for diamonds? What about ice made by refrigeration instead of ice cut from a frozen lake? Early man-made versions of these

Do you put forward the same argument for diamonds? What about ice made by refrigeration instead of ice cut from a frozen lake? Early man-made versions of these products were inferior, but nowadays we prefer them. Likewise, in-vitro meat is still in its early stages, but it has the potential to taste even better than the most pampered animals today. Somewhere on this planet exists the tastiest cow. It has just the right combination of genes and environment to make it more mouth-watering to us than any other cow. Unfortunately, we won't know it's the tastiest cow until we kill it and eat it. Then only a few people will be able to enjoy it. Offspring with the same diet would likely taste great, but breeding and changing diet will always be an imprecise way to get tasty cows. When fully-developed, in-vitro meat technology will give us better control over every aspect of the meat's taste. Nutrients can be delivered in just the right proportions at just the right times. Exercise (or lack of) can be simulated as much as we want. Even the genes in the tissue can be altered to improve the taste and texture. Once the technology gets to that point, there will be no good reason to raise and eat animals. We can all eat /better/, live /better/ and be /better/ without all the trade-offs if we'll put a little more thought into our lives and a have a little more moderation of consumption. Oh, and waste less. This is a nice sentiment, but I don't think any civilization has voluntarily reduced its resource usage or consumption. The people working on in-vitro meat want to solve the same problem as you, but they're being pragmatic about it.