No, it's a point of view. A lot of people in this conversation seem to be stuck on human-level understandings of objects, as if "paper" is something that has an objective existence, and if we "consume" the paper, now there's one piece of paper less that the universe will ever see. It's the Aristotelian view of the universe as consisting of the four elements, only with a lot more elements in it.

Instead, watch the atoms you learned about in chemistry class, which have the advantage of being real. They're generally conserved. (Not 100%, but places where we're changing atoms are very fringe in our economy.) Converting paper into a mushy mess is just introducing entropy into the paper. With energy invested we can turn those atoms back into paper. With our current tech level that may be a very long, winding, expensive journey, but it could be easier. Plus as we develop tech, we will start tending to prefer organizations of atoms that are easier to create in the first place, which is why you hear about things like the "diamond age".

With enough energy, we can rearrange atoms in almost any way we'd like. We don't dump things in landfills because we have no use for the atoms, we dump them there because it's too energetically expensive to undo the entropy introduced into them by our usage that has put them in their current high-entropy, low-use configuration. If we solved that problem, landfills wouldn't exist. That's a big "if", absolutely, no denying it. But if you, say, really passionately wanted to solve the landfill problem and not just nibble around the edges, this is the angle you should be taking.