Ecological Economics, 3 (1991) 161-163 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.. Amsterdam Letter to the Editor 161 Entropy law and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s paradigm: A Reply Elias L. Khalil Department of Economics, Ohio State University, I680 University Dr., Mansfield, OH 44906. USA ABSTRACT Khalil, E.L.. 1991. Entropy law and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s paradigm: A reply. Ecoi. Econ., 3: 161-163. Lozada fails to offer an argument why the entropy law is pertinent to the conception of the economic process. What appears to him as a “logical slip” in my argument in fact substantiates the thesis that the entropy law is irrelevant to the understanding of the deterioration of natural resources and the environment. The central claim of Gabriel Lozada (1990) is that I have committed a “logical slip” in my article (Khalil, 1990b). For the sake of argument, let me accept his point that the Kelvin statement of the second law of thermody- namics, like the Clausius statement, “does not command the existence of a purposeful Carnot cycle,” or, in general, “the existence of purposeful process.” I find it so ironic that Lozada’s assertion is even a greater indictment than mine of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s (hereafter, G-R) paradigm. To recall, the core of G-R’s approach is that the second law (or entropy law) is a purposeful process (and governs the economic process since it is also purposeful). The gist of my article and appendix is to show that nothing is purposeful about the second law; it describes zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgf mechanistic dynamics, similar to the law of gases. If one accepts that the second law does not imply the existence of purposeful processes, as Lozada seems to argue, then the core of G-R’s paradigm has been shaken. Let me reply to other points in the order presented. I argue that living beings are not subject to the entropy law. This does not mean, as Lozada 0921-8009/91/$03.50 0 1991 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.