EDITORIAL

JUAN MARÍA CUEVAS SILVA

Reality covers us with phenomena and dynamics between the natural and the artificial, as a result of the national project in which is privileged thinking, more than existing and living. In view of this context, humans have proposed to create science as one of the systems to understand the dynamics of nature and at the same time, are inventing survival systems. These two stances have generated in the actual culture a confrontation characterized by the defense of life in all its aspects and fields.

From the natural, our planet asks for its care as habitat, as essential and central core to let live; it's a call made to humans as beings that from the beginning on Earth, at least in west culture, manipulate natural resources like a way to show their power as lord and master of the Earth to the point that, explained by Gustavo Correa and Astrid Muñoz: "that's why, they born, grow up and phenomena inequalities are reproduced and these events are marked by inequality conditions in the access to water and the implications that this situation keeps with poverty. In this sense, it is possible to suggest that inequity obeys to phenomena that from both inside and outside they try to perpetuate it in time".

Not is only the access to water, here it's an example of how the use of natural resources with trading and consuming purposes increase the social inequalities and injustice. It is just enough to see how the free trade agreements, signed with Latin-American countries, focus in the importation of manufactured inputs in return of our natural products. In this context science is trying more and more to answer to the process of denaturalization of humans, to a reality of deny of the human being, to a social system that every day is further from its nature and set out life systems in the way of natural selection where survive the strongest. At the same time, academic speeches and intellectual productions have come to determinate that we are in the middle of a problem centered in "bioethics and ecoethics", names that haven't been understood yet in every day life, but that open new horizons of comprehension for reality.

Bioethics and ethics are concepts that have the same intentionality: to rescue the life value in the controversial context between natural and artificial. To understand this aspect is important to consider that in the crucial time of Christian thought, known as "middle age", the fight was focused between reason and faith, two main elements in the construction of Christianity that built particular events in west culture. So, just like that conflict between faith and reason was vital for the cultural development in middle age, today we are in front of a dichotomous reality between natural and artificial, between bioethics and eco-ethics, between science and technology, between economy and well-being. In other words, according to Pedro Cantú-Martínez, a dichotomy between ethics and viability, or as María Teresa Escobar and César Alexis Carrera establish from their research results when they attack the problem in the relationship between patient and informed consent. The world of dichotomies continues wandering around the human existence. A dichotomy that becomes real when shows the population growth and as a consequence develops violence, wars, hunger, injustice, science, technology, economic systems and even religions or spiritual movements.

On their behalf, bioethics and ecoethics are neologisms that mix life and nature with ethics. In other words, with the meaning of living, the combination between human and nature, the needs to think about in more human structures like are science, technology and the paradigmatic "quality of life", as to deal with the deepest problems in the relationship human - ecology. In these neologistic scenarios abounding with repetitive speeches of a context characterized for being in the middle of a dehumanization process, but in fact we are in front of a superior process of humans, especially if we are center in the products of a rational human bet. There is nothing more human that a technological device or violence and war that justified actions against each other. Rather we find in the middle of the most advanced process of humanization with emphasis in denaturalization, in the middle of a sociopolitical and socioeconomic development that, as DulceMaría Bautista said in her article, "new ways to see the world have arisen and obviously new products and desires". Those new ways are every time shorter, unstable and with terrible effects to the nature, the environment, the human ecology, the analytical dynamics; in other words to everything that involve and affect life.

In this scenario of diverse sociological dynamics, the education has challenges that, from the proposal of Jorge Enrique Gómez, have to be asked: "how to get along in a plural world, and inside the classroom, the ethics with an universal tendency and at the same time to avoid the ethic relativism?"

Alejandra Peñacoba says: "Reason and reality are split, also are reason, willpower and heart; individual and society; faith and reason. Ultimately, the man is divided into many possibilities supposedly with an equal value". Both authors make a call to the education value and its social place as "cultural device" that must focus its action in the axiology and the value of the person; aspects that have to exceed the anthropocentrism in such a way that life is thought as a process developed in a "holistic" way. But is not only the education but also have to be involved other fundamental classes to protect life, such as medicine in all its fields which are tackled in this issue by the researches of Jorge Oliva, Gloria Arango, Angela MaríaHenao and Consuelo del Pilar Amaya.

On the other hand, for the understanding development of bioethics an ecoethics is necessary to make a study from aninterdisciplinary field, that's an alternative of study that is developed by Jorge Alberto Álvarez when he make the relation between bioethics and psychoanalysis.

The transdisciplinary and the interdisciplinary nature are typical in ecoethics and bioethics, as systems that help to understand that life problems cannot be executed; like the social science (liberal studies, health, environment, among other more) in an isolated way of the social, politics and economic process. That's why, as proposed by RafatGhotme and Alejandra Ripoll "the international cooperation has been marked by the inequality and individualism, in spite of the growing world interdependency, because even the opposite interest and the competition for power, they are a constant inside the relations of the international system", the ethic, the bioethics and the ecoethic must be inside the dynamics of the international actions in a joint way, but the lack of connection between science production and social reality is every time deeper and visible.

An example of this is Ebola, a disease originated in a fertile region with natural resources, but that is forgotten in its social and population reality, for example to the individualism and harmful interest of the looter countries. Today, it's urgent that in an international level, the cooperation is agile, fair and contextual; that have conscious and memory for a life projection with sense, not only the human life but also life in all meanings, from the smallest being to the biggest one.

Bioethics, ecoethics, human development and international cooperation are areas that can give in these moments to a troubled world not only with the digital revolution but also troubled because it hasn't found the way that can take it to discover new strategies to protect life and make it worth in a just andfair way, sacred and inviolable.