Is it inherently better to prevent plants from being killed? Artificial prevention of forest fires have created tinder box conditions perfect for catastrophic scale forest fire; nature maintain forest health with routine small fires, human meddling made the condition worse.

Young plants convert CO2 at much higher rate than mature plants.

What is the environmental as well as social consequence of producing such a pill at global scale? If we entirely eliminate agriculture and turn to high-tech production of magic pill, what happens if the technology suddenly gets wiped out, or get the price jacked up 7500% over night?

Would portable long term food storage increase human will to engage in longer range, longer duration warfare? (increased abundance of salt increased battles scale by extending food preservation capacity.) Would it increase self-sufficiency thus decrease trade and cooperations, and make people more isolated, less diplomatic, and more willing to engage in conflicts? Will the production of the pill require global sharing of industrial/ scientific knowledge that could be used for more nefarious purposes if not properly regulated?

What about the social and cultural value weaved into the dining ritual? The social bond and hedonistic value? Are those not important to human well beings? Do we permit the extinction of these practices over unwillingness to kill plants?

What about the problem of taking human consumption out of nature, entirely erasing any sort of balancing or feedback loops?

And where do you stop? Would you also ask people to stop using life-saving antibiotics, deworming, insecticide, vaccines etc, that kill off a lot of living things, some of them animals, and sometimes causing extinction of an entire species, in order to improve human living conditions?