Green chemistry is nothing but using/learning/controlling Natural Interfering Systems for synthesis/degradation amplified processes. The 4th principle stating that chemical products should be designed to effect their desired function while minimizing toxicity has its limitations due educational programs and methods for measuring toxicity, thus underestimate how biological systems manipulate time via mutability and carbon interfering systems. Design cannot predict and/or resolve and/or create emergent properties in expanded biological space because designing compounds meets the uncertainty of signalization within living tissues. Considering the origin of carbon signalization, scientific methods should include a novel system for testing toxicity by projecting future outcomes through the interaction of negentropy and enetropy via quantum biology computation provided through LIFE PDE.
You are over-simplifying green chemistry. While you do not define "using/learning/controlling Natural Interfering Systems", I interpret that to mean that the chemistry should integrate with (as opposed to interfere with) natural systems. Green chemistry is more than just minimizing toxicity in the product. Green chemistry is also about recognizing the hazards associated with starting materials, solvents, and other inputs, both in terms of the characteristics of those inputs (e.g. a toxic solvent) and the up-stream footprint to make them (e.g. resource extraction).
Green chemistry includes consideration of the reaction conditions and minimizing the energy use and safety risk (e.g. avoid potentially explosive conditions).
You are right that it is very difficult to predict how a particular substance will intereact with "expanded biological space", but chemists can consider some well-understood properties in their molecular design. What they design may not be perfectly green, but it can be a big improvement over what it's replacing.
There are numerous groups working to improve in silico toxicity measurements so that it becomes easier and cheaper to predict potential toxic effects based on structure rather than relying solely on in vivo testing after the molecule is designed and synthesized.
It is exactly the opposite - I input complexity in well establiched reaction mechanisms input and reduce complexity in biological systems output. Although we do know to some extend how simple functional groups and/or chain of quantum states interfere, we do not know how structural input affects functional output in expanded biological space. As a result, much toxicity has been created. As we have experienced the word toxic is relevant to time affecting funciton of a given bio space. This how every drug works and this is how every toxin works.
Green chemistry should deal with the catalytic mechanisms used to redefine interference of particles/strings/waves.
Yes, a solution may have several paths for solvation, however, the most effective one in a long term should be the most difficult. This is how Nature works. Science deals with properties of isolated natural substances and their function.
In sillico toxicity should be able to measure life pde, as is the case of cell transformation in cancer induced drugs.
Function precedes Strucutre.