as has been said before here Bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis to keep functioning properly.
In the case bitcoin will always have a sufficient number of satoshis, that's even better. Recycling would refer specifically to preserving the original fixed supply and comply with the law of conservation of energy.
Quote
@HandcraftedBreads, you should also take into consideration that the incentive for the vast majority of those who have a say about protocol changes is essentially zero regarding your proposal. Unless the economic viability of the protocol is so badly threatened that the wealth contained by the network is seriously at risk, you won't ever convince the majority of voting power to vote in favor of that protocol change. A fork is a possibility and you could decide to shift your wealth from Bitcoin to the new fork operating on your newly proposed rules. Speaking of which, this is what you could actually do. Introduce the new rule into the protocol, get a fork going and see how people react to it. 
A good idea doesn't need to convince, but to present itself at the right moment.
The idea isn't directed to create a different path, but to continue on the right one. There's no interest in financial gain, or any type of gain, apart for the good of the system and the network.
A system which allows to permanently lose energy is one that is destined to collapse, by virtue of the laws of nature. Recycling would contribute in making bitcoin forever.