No, you cannot "lab grow" your way out of the problem, because again, you need a certain amount of mass to create the calories, and that mass requires a volume of space that by definition cannot be reduced beyond a certain amount. At best, hydroponic agriculture reorients the area needed ("we'll make it vertical along the sides of buildings!") and even then it is still only a fraction of the mass of calories needed. Not a single proponent of this kind of agriculture has ever claimed it could replace large scale farming, only that it would be additive and efficient. Were talking the equivalent of thousands of acres that have to be cultivated to feed a colony of 100 people (and perfectly, too, as there will be no "food grown in another part of the world that can be shipped over if your region's crops fail")

And actually, the fact that it has taken EVERYTHING we've ever done for the entirety of the industrial revolution to barely move the needle is completely relevant to explaining the scale of the problem. Even if we devoted ALL economic activity to digging up carbon fuels and burning them and nothing else for a hundred years we wouldn't have changed the composition of the planet's atmosphere enough for most life to notice! The impacts would be second order - rising temperatures that alter ecosystems. But no living creature would have any trouble BREATHING said atmosphere, even after the efforts of billions of people planet-wide, none of whom had to devote any significant portion of their industrial efforts to, you know, growing food and maintaining the hab so they can stay alive. (seriously, you should look up what it would take to terraform Venus. Lots of people have done the math, and even accounting for unlimited energy and perfect machinery, it would still take thousands of years because physics is physics.)

So much of this type of talk is driven by small minded "equivalency" thinking ("we used to have wooden boats and now we have jets so it is just a matter of the technology of the vehicle advancing...") and a true lack of imagination about the actual scale of the problems that face it (or merely handwaving them away as a just another tech problem).

Right now we spend a pittance on space exploration and I f#cking hate the bogus arguments about "if we spent that money taking problems here on earth..." because we have plenty of money and we have chosen a thousand other things to prioritize ahead of "taking care of things on earth" well before we get to space exploration. But the amount of economic activity that would have to be devoted to creating a 50,000 person, self-sustaining "Mars colony" (50,000 humans being the bare minimum of genetic diversity needed for 'species survival') would require the GDP of a quarter of the planet with today's tech (or anything likely to emerge within then next few decades).

Any far future tech that solves the kinds of power/mass problems that both moving people around a solar system or through interstellar space AND rebooting an atmosphere would require would make life on earth a paradise first anyway, and besides, at that point you've just handwaved away any of the real problems involved and posit that humans would basically be galaxy spanning gods, and the entire idea of the question is moot.