sustainability science. weak vs strong debate

Prompt

1- weak sustainability is an idealized regime where humans consume and populate at a slow enough rate that allows for the combined effect of technological substitution + nature's natural regeneration to redistribute matter so it doesn't accumulate as waste or show up as local depletions. 2- nature's natural regeneration is often far slower compared to technological substitution. the latter occurs on human-relevant time scale, whereas the former requires deep-time. so it's often negligible against technological substitution. i stated it mostly for completion. 4- stock alone doesn't matter for sustainability accounting. what matters is the product B of stock times flow (M x b), and how this product compares to consumption rate. consider far away planets with distinct ecosystems and physical conditions. in one planet, trees are abundant, but their productivity is low. In the other planet, there are only few trees, but with enormous productivity, such that the net b times M for the two planets are equal. The two planets will represent equal carrying capacities for their inhabitants, despite the starking differences in stock per se. I should point out that independence of technological boost from nature's resources is not strictly required for b to be a valid compensation for M. boost could be entirely dependent on M and still full compensate, as in the two planets example. in a thought experiment where we move from the planet with numerous trees to the planet with high productivity, u could say we are displacing nature's resources from one place (trees) to another (apples). ultimately what matters is the overall regeneration rate. 5- the point is that in moving from the planet with numerous trees to the planet with high productivity, waste does not accumulate (no pollution or excess atmospheric carbon for example) and there's no local depletion ( in the form of nutrient depletion of fruits, vegetables, soil, etc). redistribution is bound to occur, regardless of which regime we are in. in the idealized scenario/regime where humans populate and consume at the perfect rate, the redistribution will be absorbed by the combined effects of substitution and nature's regeneration just in time to prevent that redistribution from accumulating in the form on unwanted, unproductive matter that cannot be put to immediate use ( waste). 6- my intuition tells me that even though total productivity, the product of M and b is the only thing that matters, the point is somewhat moot, as stocks may still serve an independent role and cannot be fully compensated for or substituted by technological innovation. 6-imagine an orchard with trees that produce apples. the number of trees is M, the rate of apple production is b, and total productivity B = M x b. another example is hens and eggs, where number of total productivity = number of hens x rate of egg production per hen. in sustainability accounting we compare the total productivity rate with consumption rate to determine whether there is net accumulation. if consumption exceeds total productivity, we say the system is in overshoot. the question is, do stocks play a separate, individual role (strong sustainability), or is the total productivity B vs consumption rate accounting all that matters?