“the carrying capacity of its natural and social system”?

“Ethical Aspects of Sustainability” by Bruce Jennings, he defines our moral responsibility to natural resources and the climate crisis in this way, “A sustainable society lives within the carrying capacity of its natural and social system. It has a system of rules and incentives that promote replenishing and limit depletion and pollution. A sustainable society builds upon the commitment of its members to conform to these rules voluntarily, and it enforces them when necessary”.

1.  In your own words, explain what he means by  “the carrying capacity of its natural and social system”? What is the implied relationship between the planet, society, and our natural resources, according to Jennings? Then, can you point out other authors whom we have read in this course who echo this sentiment or idea regarding natural resources? Who are they and what are the common ideas?

2. Jennings describes three kinds of philosophical orientations. I like to call them points of view –  that occur when engaging in ethical or moral debates, such as those that exist around and within the moral responsibility discourse of sustainability. How we respond to our responsibilities, then have everything do to with the way we frame or view our relationship to me ( what directly concerns me, and the not-me, those things that are indirectly related to me). Please define all 3 of them as he defines them in his post. Then, consider which frame or lens is the best one, the one most necessary for sustainability discussions and outlooks? In contrast, which one is the most detrimental to conversations regarding sustainability and responsibility?

Link: