Imagine a hypothetical world where lab-grown meat and real meat taste the same and cost the same (externalities and animal cruelty accounted for) Which is better? On the one hand, there is no death and killing with lab grown meat. On the other hand, there is less life as well. Is it better for all those cows and chickens to never live at all than live and be killed for food? I'm not sure.
- A scarcity based mindset would argue that more life is inherently bad, see Malthus.
- A longtermist would argue that more life at any cost is better because it increases the statistical likelihood that some good would happen even as it increases the scope of potential catastrophe.
- An existentialist would argue that a life of captivity, born to die with no right to self-determination is not a life worth living
- Socrates would likely argue it doesn't matter because the chickens and the cows won't examine their life to extract any meaning at all
- Utilitarians would say people are getting fed either way, so go for the most efficient means.
- etc etc
This is a question of subjective valuation, and as such will never have a definite answer. It will also be subject to whatever framework the reader subscribes to.
The questions surrounding environmental impact, scale, food pipeline stability, et al are more measurable and able to deliver a quantitative "better or worse" conclusion given sufficient framing. To my mind that makes them more interesting.