It does not lead to a matrix change, dear Lucio Muñoz , with respect to the criteria of TS Kuhn. The use of the word circular is the sleight of hand, because linearity, supported by outdated math and physics, remains the dominant thought model.

Imo, economic thinking in cycles is the key as waves transform into cycles, although different cycles have to be considered as per laws of nature and society.

__________

PS/

Worked in the early 1990s on paradigm change in technical (engineering) science, as research fellow at U Tokyo, Goethe U Frankfurt and Inter-Uni Dubrovnik, elaborating a universal theory of manufacturing, i.e. defining the meta-technological criteria to move from serialization to de-serialization.

Personal communication with TS Kuhn (MIT) was positive, but also disillusioning, with respect to paradigm change in the mentioned science sector.

—-—

The answers you get depend on the questions you ask. ― Thomas S. Kuhn

(1922-1996)

You can summarize your comment using Kuhn's language: IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE ADNORMALITIES AFFECTING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF ITS PREVIOUS FORM, which means that the circular economy is a pollution production market just as the linear was and is, the same with a nickname.

I am bringing new ideas in my next few papers to understand these issues in simple terms to add to the growth of knowledge, regardless of whether it is ignored or not.

If you have a flawed paradigm FLP = AiT and a golden paradigm GOP = T and you subject them both to the Thomas Kuhn's paradigm transformation loop(TKPTL) under academic integrity AND no paradigm shift knowledge gaps you get the following results:

I[Ai]

TKPTL(FLP = AiT)---------------->GOP = T

TKPTL(GOP = T)----------------->GOP = T

NOTICE, the TKPTL loop removes the abnormalities Ai from the flawed paradigm through externality internalization to transform it in the end into the golden paradigm, where the knowledge that work in the flawed paradigm is left behind as it does not work in the golden paradigm world. There are no abnormalities to be removed from golden paradigms. I have published on how this works and a new paper is coming out focused on the move to circular economic thinking as a status quo paradigm deep double down to scape the thomas kuhn's paradigm transformation loop.

See that in the case of the linear traditional FLP = TM = aBc, we can subject it to the thomas kuhn's loop and based on priorities we reach different golden paradigm structure, that can be used as step by step evolution or a one step evolution: for example, if the social issue is the priority removal, then you first go to a red market/socially friendly capitalism, and then you need to remove the environmental externality to end up in the sustainability market, or if the enviromental issue is the key issue to remove first, you go to green markets/environmentally friendly capitalism, and then the need to remove the social abnormality leads you again to sustainability markets or if you make removal of both social and environmental abnormalities the priority as the WCED 1987 SHOULD HAVE DONE, we would had go in one step to setting up sustainability markets.

TKPTL1(FLP = TM = aBc) -------> different routes towards

sustainability markets

Since going from the traditional market structure(TM = aBc) to the circular traditional market structure (CTM = aBc) does not remove the socio-evironmental abnormalities the WCED 1987 said should be addressed by placing traditional economic thinking under full social and environmental responsibility and inclusion....

So the move: traditional market to circular traditional market

TM = aBc------------------->CTM = aBc

Not consistent with TKPTL as the abnormalities that are the problem are still the problemI[removed Ai = 0), which means that the move to circular economic thinking assumes Thomas Kuhn's paradigm transformation loop NEUTRALITY.

not consistent with TKPTL as I[removed Ai = 0)

TKPTL(FLP = TM = aBc)-------------------->CTM = aBc

I appreciate your interaction Stephen

Respectfully yours;

Lucio