Critiques the circular economy, revealing tensions between physical laws and psychological pressures on identity.
This paper develops a critique of the circular economy through the lenses of thermodynamics and psychoanalysis, proceeding from the premise that the ideal of a "world without waste" neglects fundamental physical and psychic limitations. In engineering terms, the concept of closed material loops conflicts with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which dictates irreversible energy losses and the degradation of matter in every transformation process. Parallelly, within the psychological domain, the imperative of infinite reparation and resource reuse reflects a pressure on the subject to transform every loss into a functional element of identity, leading to exhaustion and the phenomenon of burnout. Methodologically, the paper employs qualitative comparative analysis and transdisciplinary synthesis, mapping structural analogies between thermodynamic systems and psychic processes, alongside a critical deconstruction of the discourse of circularity within contemporary regulatory frameworks. Based on this analysis, the concept of "entropy of the soul" is introduced as a theoretical construct denoting the limit of a system's capacity to absorb and reorganize losses without consequences for its own stability. Through case studies of textile recycling and phosphorus recuperation, the paper demonstrates that the pursuit of total circularity often produces additional complexity, energy costs, and systemic inefficiency, while manifesting on the psychological plane as a compulsion to accumulate and an inability to discard. The discussion introduces a distinction between operational and ideological circularity, emphasizing that the problem lies not in the technical optimization of resources, but in its transformation into a normative imperative that negates entropy. In conclusion, the paper argues that sustainability cannot be grounded in the fantasy of total circularity, but rather in the acknowledgment of inevitable loss as a structural element of every system. In this sense, the "right to waste" emerges as a key concept that enables both technical rationality and psychological regeneration. Rad razvija kritiku cirkularne ekonomije iz perspektive termodinamike i psihoanalize, polazeći od pretpostavke da ideal „sveta bez otpada“ zanemaruje fundamentalna fizička i psihička ograničenja. U inženjerskom smislu, koncept zatvorenih materijalnih tokova dolazi u sukob sa Drugim zakonom termodinamike, koji nalaže nepovratne gubitke energije i degradaciju materije u svakom procesu transformacije. Paralelno, u psihološkom domenu, imperativ beskonačne reparacije i ponovne upotrebe resursa reflektuje se kao pritisak na subjekta da svaki gubitak transformiše u funkcionalni element identiteta, što vodi ka iscrpljenosti i fenomenu sagorevanja. Metodološki, rad primenjuje kvalitativnu komparativnu analizu i transdisciplinarnu sintezu, mapirajući strukturne analogije između termodinamičkih sistema i psihičkih procesa, uz kritičku dekonstrukciju diskursa cirkularnosti u savremenim regulatornim okvirima. Na osnovu ove analize uvodi se koncept „entropije duše“ kao teorijski konstrukt koji označava granicu kapaciteta sistema da apsorbuje i reorganizuje gubitke bez posledica po sopstvenu stabilnost. Kroz studije slučaja reciklaže tekstila i rekuperacije fosfora, rad pokazuje da težnja ka potpunoj cirkularnosti često proizvodi dodatnu kompleksnost, energetske troškove i sistemsku neefikasnost, dok se na psihološkom planu manifestuje kao prinuda na akumulaciju i nemogućnost odbacivanja. Diskusija uvodi razlikovanje između operativne i ideološke cirkularnosti, naglašavajući da problem ne leži u tehničkoj optimizaciji resursa, već u njenoj transformaciji u normativni imperativ koji negira entropiju. Zaključno, rad argumentuje da održivost ne može biti zasnovana na fantaziji potpune cirkularnosti, već na priznavanju neizbežnog gubitka kao strukturnog elementa svakog sistema. U tom smislu, „pravo na otpad“ pojavljuje se kao ključni koncept koji omogućava i tehničku racionalnost i psihološku regeneraciju.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bajro Salkunić (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: