Lab-grown meat will solve everything
It may well help eventually. In the meantime the alternatives that already exist don't require waiting for anything.
Asking billions of people to give up a food they love has never worked at scale, whereas cultivated meat offers the same product without the animal, so it could end the harm without requiring anyone to change what they eat. Investment, regulatory approvals and falling costs suggest it is a matter of when, not if. Putting effort into speeding up that technology is likely to spare far more animals than trying to persuade people one at a time to go vegan.
Cultivated meat is a serious research programme with real promise, and if it reaches price parity at scale it could change the picture substantially. There is no reason to be dismissive about it.
It is also not here. Regulatory approval exists in a handful of jurisdictions, production volumes are tiny, and cost per unit remains far above conventional meat. Significant scaling problems are unsolved. Treating a prospective technology as a reason to defer is a familiar move in climate debates and has the same weakness: the alternatives that would be adopted in the meantime are available now, proven, and require no new infrastructure.
Preferring existing arrangements simply because they are the existing arrangements, and treating any change as carrying a burden of proof that the present state does not.
How it applies here: A prospective technology is used to justify leaving present behaviour unchanged, placing the burden of action entirely on the future and none on the present.
Rejecting a workable option because it falls short of a perfect one. Also called the perfect solution fallacy. The relevant comparison is with the realistic alternative, not with perfection.
How it applies here: Holds out for a solution requiring no adjustment at all, and treats the available option as not worth adopting because it asks for one.