This is to me like when people argue about banning airbnb. "The other day I had arrived in a city and there were no hostels, all the hotels were $300/night or

This is to me like when people argue about banning airbnb. "The other day I had arrived in a city and there were no hostels, all the hotels were $300/night or full. If there were no airbnb, what would I have done?" And the answer is you would have changed your behaviour. Booking something further in advance, changing your travel plans, finding a different city to stay in. The whole point of this idea is reducing the number of flights. That probably also means it's harder for people like you (and me) to live anywhere we want. But that is a privilege we have, not a given. If the cost is too great, we change our behaviour. If airbnb has destroyed the rental market in a city, it's better for them to ban it and lose some travellers. Similar argument to the "any-benefit" approach to technology, which Cal Newport writes about with relation to digital minimalism. We think we're justified in using a tool if we can identify any possible benefit to its use.