Recibido: - Aprobado:
185
Año 18, Vol. 35, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025
COPYRIGHT © (URACCAN). TODOS LOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS • ISSN 1997-9231 (Print) • ISSN 2223-6260 (Online).
https://doi.org/10.5377/rci.v35i1.21979
Licencia Creative Commons
Atribución-NoComercial-NoDerivadas185 Recibido: 19/09/2020 - Aprobado: 19/05/2025
Gómez Rodríguez, D. T. (2026). Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and
bioethics. Ciencia e Interculturalidad, 35(1), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.5377/rci.v35i1.21979
Licencia Creative Commons
Atribución-NoComercial-NoDerivadas
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue
between ecological economics and bioethics
Sostenibilidad ambiental: un diálogo entre economía ecológica y bioética
Dustin Tahisin Gómez Rodríguez 1
ABSTRACT
The article aims to characterize the dialogues between Ecological Economics and
Bioethics to develop a conceptual and practical framework that fosters sustainable and
ethically grounded economic growth. The adopted methodology follows a qualitative
approach structured into two main stages. The first involved the use of search equations
in databases such as WoS, Scopus, Scielo, and Redalyc, covering a temporal horizon of
20 years. In the second stage, the PRISMA method was applied to filter and categorize
194 documents, resulting in the selection of 123 academic articles, 54 institutional
reports, and 17 critical reviews. This process enabled the identification of key categories
such as strong sustainability, environmental ethics, intergenerational justice, and
biodiversity valuation. The interdisciplinary analysis highlighted the interaction
between these approaches, demonstrating that both emphasize the necessity of
respecting the planet's biophysical limits and adopting economic models that integrate
ethical principles. The primary conclusion underscores that the dialogue between
ecological economics and Bioethics is transformative and essential for addressing
contemporary sustainability challenges. This integration promotes sustainable public
policies and practices that balance human well-being with environmental preservation,
ensuring intergenerational equity and ecological resilience as critical elements for an
ethically responsible future.
Keywords: Ecological economics, bioethics, sustainability, biodiversity
1 Doctor en agrociencias de la Universidad de la Salle. dustin.tgr@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5359-2300
Doctor of Agricultural Sciences from La Salle University.
AGRoPECUARIA
186 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. 186Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
RESUMEN
El artículo tiene como objetivo caracterizar los diálogos entre la Economía Ecológica
y la Bioética con el fin de desarrollar un marco conceptual y práctico que fomente
un crecimiento económico sostenible y éticamente fundamentado. La metodología
adoptada sigue un enfoque cualitativo estructurado en dos etapas principales. La
primera consistió en el uso de ecuaciones de búsqueda en bases de datos como WoS,
Scopus, Scielo y Redalyc, abarcando un horizonte temporal de 20 años. En la segunda
etapa, se aplicó el método PRISMA para filtrar y categorizar 194 documentos, lo que
resultó en la selección de 123 artículos académicos, 54 informes institucionales y 17
revisiones críticas. Este proceso permitió identificar categorías clave como sostenibilidad
fuerte, ética ambiental, justicia intergeneracional y valoración de la biodiversidad. El
análisis interdisciplinario resaltó la interacción entre estos enfoques, demostrando que
ambos enfatizan la necesidad de respetar los límites biofísicos del planeta y de adoptar
modelos económicos que integren principios éticos. La conclusión principal subraya
que el diálogo entre la Economía Ecológica y la Bioética es transformador y esencial
para enfrentar los desafíos contemporáneos de la sostenibilidad. Esta integración
promueve políticas públicas y prácticas sostenibles que equilibran el bienestar humano
con la preservación ambiental, asegurando la equidad intergeneracional y la resiliencia
ecológica como elementos críticos para un futuro éticamente responsable.
Palabras clave: Economía ecológica, bioética, sostenibilidad, biodiversidad
I. INTRODUCTION
The dialogue between Ecological Economics-EE and Bioethics-B is embedded
in the complex relationship between the environment, economics, and ethics in
decision-making processes. Both approaches share the fundamental goal of seeking a
sustainable balance between economic development and environmental preservation,
considering the ethical implications of human actions regarding biodiversity and
natural resources (Aliciardi, 2009; Carpintero, 2006). As a branch of economics,
Ecological Economics acknowledges the connections between the economy and the
ecosystem. Unlike traditional approaches that often disregard natural limits, it focuses
on the symbiotic relationship between economic activity and the ecological systems
that sustain it. Thus, it views the economy as a subset of the biosphere, aiming to
integrate principles of sustainability, justice, and resilience into economic models
(Oliveira and Osman, 2017; Naredo, 2006).
Bioethics, on the other hand, is an interdisciplinary field exploring emerging ethical
dilemmas in biology, medicine, and technology, emphasizing the dignity and inherent
rights of living beings. The interaction between Bioethics and Ecological Economics
addresses critical issues regarding how economic decisions impact both humans and
biodiversity and ecosystems in general (Gorz, 2012). Ecological Economics provides
186 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. 186Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
RESUMEN
El artículo tiene como objetivo caracterizar los diálogos entre la Economía Ecológica
y la Bioética con el fin de desarrollar un marco conceptual y práctico que fomente
un crecimiento económico sostenible y éticamente fundamentado. La metodología
adoptada sigue un enfoque cualitativo estructurado en dos etapas principales. La
primera consistió en el uso de ecuaciones de búsqueda en bases de datos como WoS,
Scopus, Scielo y Redalyc, abarcando un horizonte temporal de 20 años. En la segunda
etapa, se aplicó el método PRISMA para filtrar y categorizar 194 documentos, lo que
resultó en la selección de 123 artículos académicos, 54 informes institucionales y 17
revisiones críticas. Este proceso permitió identificar categorías clave como sostenibilidad
fuerte, ética ambiental, justicia intergeneracional y valoración de la biodiversidad. El
análisis interdisciplinario resaltó la interacción entre estos enfoques, demostrando que
ambos enfatizan la necesidad de respetar los límites biofísicos del planeta y de adoptar
modelos económicos que integren principios éticos. La conclusión principal subraya
que el diálogo entre la Economía Ecológica y la Bioética es transformador y esencial
para enfrentar los desafíos contemporáneos de la sostenibilidad. Esta integración
promueve políticas públicas y prácticas sostenibles que equilibran el bienestar humano
con la preservación ambiental, asegurando la equidad intergeneracional y la resiliencia
ecológica como elementos críticos para un futuro éticamente responsable.
Palabras clave: Economía ecológica, bioética, sostenibilidad, biodiversidad
I. INTRODUCTION
The dialogue between Ecological Economics-EE and Bioethics-B is embedded
in the complex relationship between the environment, economics, and ethics in
decision-making processes. Both approaches share the fundamental goal of seeking a
sustainable balance between economic development and environmental preservation,
considering the ethical implications of human actions regarding biodiversity and
natural resources (Aliciardi, 2009; Carpintero, 2006). As a branch of economics,
Ecological Economics acknowledges the connections between the economy and the
ecosystem. Unlike traditional approaches that often disregard natural limits, it focuses
on the symbiotic relationship between economic activity and the ecological systems
that sustain it. Thus, it views the economy as a subset of the biosphere, aiming to
integrate principles of sustainability, justice, and resilience into economic models
(Oliveira and Osman, 2017; Naredo, 2006).
Bioethics, on the other hand, is an interdisciplinary field exploring emerging ethical
dilemmas in biology, medicine, and technology, emphasizing the dignity and inherent
rights of living beings. The interaction between Bioethics and Ecological Economics
addresses critical issues regarding how economic decisions impact both humans and
biodiversity and ecosystems in general (Gorz, 2012). Ecological Economics provides
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
187Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
a framework for evaluating the value of ecosystem services and natural resources,
recognizing their finitude and the severe consequences their degradation may have
for future generations. In this context, Bioethics raises fundamental questions about
intergenerational equity and responsibility toward non-human life forms (Purvis et
al., 2019; Maldonado, 2015).
Economic decision-making becomes an ethical exercise transcending purely
financial considerations. Questions arise about how to value ecosystems that not
only sustain the human economy but are also essential for the existence of diverse
species. From this perspective, Bioethics introduces ethical reflections on whether
economic activities respect the autonomy, integrity, and biological diversity (Alier
& Jusmet, 2015; Maldonado, 2014). Clear examples of these dilemmas include the
management of natural resources. Overexploitation of forests, unsustainable fishing,
or soil degradation not only pose economic challenges but also raise ethical questions:
Is it legitimate to compromise essential resources for the survival of other species
and ecological balance in favor of short-term economic growth? (Aguilera, 2020;
Casado, 2011).
The integration of Ecological Economics and Bioethics advocates for the
development of policies that simultaneously consider the economic and ethical impacts
of human decisions. This approach implies adopting a precautionary perspective,
reflecting on the potential long-term consequences of economic actions on biodiversity
and ecosystems (Rendón & Gómez, 2022; Asnariz, 2002). Against this backdrop, this
article aims to characterize the dialogues between these approaches, developing a
conceptual and practical framework that fosters sustainable and ethically responsible
economic development. The central premise of this analysis holds that integrating
Ecological Economics and Bioethics seeks not only to optimize short-term human well-
being but also to preserve the health and integrity of ecosystems for future generations.
The article's structure includes an introduction, methodology, presentation of results,
discussion, conclusions, and a comprehensive review of the utilized bibliography,
ensuring the rigor of the conducted analysis.
II. METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed adopts a qualitative approach divided into two
methods. First, a bibliometric search equation is applied to the analytical categories
"Ecological Economics" and "Bioethics." This is conducted over a 20-year observation
window, utilizing recognized national and international databases such as Web of
Science (WOS), Scopus, Scielo, and Redalyc (Aguilera et al., 2020; Barbosa et al., 2020;
Rushforth, 2016; see Table 1 and 2).
187Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
a framework for evaluating the value of ecosystem services and natural resources,
recognizing their finitude and the severe consequences their degradation may have
for future generations. In this context, Bioethics raises fundamental questions about
intergenerational equity and responsibility toward non-human life forms (Purvis et
al., 2019; Maldonado, 2015).
Economic decision-making becomes an ethical exercise transcending purely
financial considerations. Questions arise about how to value ecosystems that not
only sustain the human economy but are also essential for the existence of diverse
species. From this perspective, Bioethics introduces ethical reflections on whether
economic activities respect the autonomy, integrity, and biological diversity (Alier
& Jusmet, 2015; Maldonado, 2014). Clear examples of these dilemmas include the
management of natural resources. Overexploitation of forests, unsustainable fishing,
or soil degradation not only pose economic challenges but also raise ethical questions:
Is it legitimate to compromise essential resources for the survival of other species
and ecological balance in favor of short-term economic growth? (Aguilera, 2020;
Casado, 2011).
The integration of Ecological Economics and Bioethics advocates for the
development of policies that simultaneously consider the economic and ethical impacts
of human decisions. This approach implies adopting a precautionary perspective,
reflecting on the potential long-term consequences of economic actions on biodiversity
and ecosystems (Rendón & Gómez, 2022; Asnariz, 2002). Against this backdrop, this
article aims to characterize the dialogues between these approaches, developing a
conceptual and practical framework that fosters sustainable and ethically responsible
economic development. The central premise of this analysis holds that integrating
Ecological Economics and Bioethics seeks not only to optimize short-term human well-
being but also to preserve the health and integrity of ecosystems for future generations.
The article's structure includes an introduction, methodology, presentation of results,
discussion, conclusions, and a comprehensive review of the utilized bibliography,
ensuring the rigor of the conducted analysis.
II. METHODOLOGY
The methodology employed adopts a qualitative approach divided into two
methods. First, a bibliometric search equation is applied to the analytical categories
"Ecological Economics" and "Bioethics." This is conducted over a 20-year observation
window, utilizing recognized national and international databases such as Web of
Science (WOS), Scopus, Scielo, and Redalyc (Aguilera et al., 2020; Barbosa et al., 2020;
Rushforth, 2016; see Table 1 and 2).
AGRoPECUARIA
188 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Table 1
Example of search equation for the category BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS
DATABASE DATABASE
WoS
Tema: (("BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS"))
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: (("BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS"))
Refinado por: Años de publicación: (2016 OR 2017 OR 2010 OR 2013 OR 2015
OR 2012 OR 2009 OR 2011 OR 2014 OR 2008 OR 2020 OR 2021 02 2022 OR
2019 OR 2018 OR 2006 OR 2005 OR 2004 0R 2003 OR 2002 02 2001 0R 2000)
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: ("BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS")
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, ESCI, A&HCI, SSCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS“)
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS“))
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS " ) ) AND ( LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2018 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2017 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2016 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2015 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2014 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2013 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2012 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2011 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2010 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2009 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2008 ) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2000 ) OR LIMIT-
Note: Process by Researcher
188 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Table 1
Example of search equation for the category BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS
DATABASE DATABASE
WoS
Tema: (("BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS"))
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: (("BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS"))
Refinado por: Años de publicación: (2016 OR 2017 OR 2010 OR 2013 OR 2015
OR 2012 OR 2009 OR 2011 OR 2014 OR 2008 OR 2020 OR 2021 02 2022 OR
2019 OR 2018 OR 2006 OR 2005 OR 2004 0R 2003 OR 2002 02 2001 0R 2000)
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: ("BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS")
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, ESCI, A&HCI, SSCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS“)
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS“))
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“BIOETICA OR BIOETHICS " ) ) AND ( LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2018 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2017 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2016 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2015 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2014 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2013 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2012 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2011 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2010 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2009 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2008 ) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2000 ) OR LIMIT-
Note: Process by Researcher
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
189Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Table 2
Example of search equation for the category ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY
Database Search equations
WoS
Tema: (("ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY"))
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: (("ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY "))
Refinado por: Años de publicación: (2021 OR 2022 OR 2023 OR 2024 OR,2016
OR 2017 OR 2010 OR 2013 OR 2015 OR 2012 OR 2009 OR 2011 OR 2014 OR 2008
OR 2020 OR 2021 02 2022 OR 2019 OR 2018 OR 2006 OR 2005 OR 2004 0R
2003 OR 2002 02 2001 0R 2000)
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: ("ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY")
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, ESCI, A&HCI, SSCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY“)
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL
ECONOMY" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2018 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2017 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2016 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2015 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2014 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2013 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2012 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2011 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2010 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2009 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2008 ) OR LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR, 2000 ) OR LIMIT-
Note: Process by Researcher
Subsequently, the PRISMA method was implemented, allowing the establishment
of analytical and emerging categories derived from the investigative exercise. These
categories are detailed in the results section, providing a structured basis for analysis
and discussion (Gómez, 2023; Castro et al., 2017; Gómez & Rincón, 2023). The PRISMA
method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is
defined as a set of standardized guidelines designed to ensure methodological quality
and transparency in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Page et al., 2021). This
approach seeks to guarantee rigor in identifying, selecting, and synthesizing studies,
promoting an accurate and comprehensive presentation of results (Van Eck & Waltman,
2009). Clear exclusion criteria were applied: (A) studies published outside the 2000-
2023 period, (B) documents without peer review, and (C) articles not available in full
text. Among the limitations, there is a potential bias toward publications in English/
189Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Table 2
Example of search equation for the category ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY
Database Search equations
WoS
Tema: (("ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY"))
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: (("ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY "))
Refinado por: Años de publicación: (2021 OR 2022 OR 2023 OR 2024 OR,2016
OR 2017 OR 2010 OR 2013 OR 2015 OR 2012 OR 2009 OR 2011 OR 2014 OR 2008
OR 2020 OR 2021 02 2022 OR 2019 OR 2018 OR 2006 OR 2005 OR 2004 0R
2003 OR 2002 02 2001 0R 2000)
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Tema: ("ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY")
Índices=SCI-EXPANDED, ESCI, A&HCI, SSCI Período de tiempo=Todos los años
Scopus
TITLE-ABS-KEY (“ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMY“)
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( ECONOMÍA ECOLÓGICA OR ECOLOGICAL
ECONOMY" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2018 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2017 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2016 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2015 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2014 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2013 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2012 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2011 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2010 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2009 ) OR LIMIT-
TO ( PUBYEAR, 2008 ) OR LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR, 2000 ) OR LIMIT-
Note: Process by Researcher
Subsequently, the PRISMA method was implemented, allowing the establishment
of analytical and emerging categories derived from the investigative exercise. These
categories are detailed in the results section, providing a structured basis for analysis
and discussion (Gómez, 2023; Castro et al., 2017; Gómez & Rincón, 2023). The PRISMA
method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is
defined as a set of standardized guidelines designed to ensure methodological quality
and transparency in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Page et al., 2021). This
approach seeks to guarantee rigor in identifying, selecting, and synthesizing studies,
promoting an accurate and comprehensive presentation of results (Van Eck & Waltman,
2009). Clear exclusion criteria were applied: (A) studies published outside the 2000-
2023 period, (B) documents without peer review, and (C) articles not available in full
text. Among the limitations, there is a potential bias toward publications in English/
AGRoPECUARIA
190 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Spanish and underrepresentation of non-academic local perspectives, which may
affect the generalizability of the findings.
In the context of Ecological Economics and Bioethics, this method identified a
total of 194 relevant documents, prioritizing those that explicitly identify the links
between these disciplines. Through the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria,
documents were filtered based on their relevance to key categories such as strong
sustainability, intergenerational justice, and environmental ethics.
In a subsequent stage, data from the selected documents were systematically
recorded, including 123 academic research articles, 54 institutional reports related to
environmental and economic analysis, and 17 critical reviews. This process ensures
a solid and coherent foundation for synthesizing knowledge on the connections
between Ecological Economics and Bioethics, contributing to advancing integrative
policies and studies in both areas. The problem question posed was: How do Ecological
Economics and Bioethics dialogue in the pursuit of Environmental Sustainability?
III. RESULTS
The dialogue between Ecological Economics and Bioethics opens a crucial
conversation on balancing economic progress with ethical responsibility toward
biodiversity and ecosystems. Both fields share concerns about sustainability but differ
in their approaches and priorities. While both disciplines focus on sustainability and
ethics in human-nature relations (Maldonado et al., 2006; Maldonado, 2012), the
emerging categories derived from the analytical categories are outlined in Table 3.
Table 3
Relationship between analytical and emerging categories
General objective Analytical
categories Emerging categories
To characterize the dialogues
between Ecological
Economics and Bioethics
to develop a conceptual
and practical framework
that fosters sustainable
and ethically responsible
economic growth.
Ecological
economics,
Bioethics.
Similarities, differences,
biophysical limits and
environmental ethics,
i n te rg e n e r a t i o n a l
justice, ethical
valuation of territory
and biodiversity,
inequality, and
distributive ethics.
Note: Process by researcher
190 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Spanish and underrepresentation of non-academic local perspectives, which may
affect the generalizability of the findings.
In the context of Ecological Economics and Bioethics, this method identified a
total of 194 relevant documents, prioritizing those that explicitly identify the links
between these disciplines. Through the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria,
documents were filtered based on their relevance to key categories such as strong
sustainability, intergenerational justice, and environmental ethics.
In a subsequent stage, data from the selected documents were systematically
recorded, including 123 academic research articles, 54 institutional reports related to
environmental and economic analysis, and 17 critical reviews. This process ensures
a solid and coherent foundation for synthesizing knowledge on the connections
between Ecological Economics and Bioethics, contributing to advancing integrative
policies and studies in both areas. The problem question posed was: How do Ecological
Economics and Bioethics dialogue in the pursuit of Environmental Sustainability?
III. RESULTS
The dialogue between Ecological Economics and Bioethics opens a crucial
conversation on balancing economic progress with ethical responsibility toward
biodiversity and ecosystems. Both fields share concerns about sustainability but differ
in their approaches and priorities. While both disciplines focus on sustainability and
ethics in human-nature relations (Maldonado et al., 2006; Maldonado, 2012), the
emerging categories derived from the analytical categories are outlined in Table 3.
Table 3
Relationship between analytical and emerging categories
General objective Analytical
categories Emerging categories
To characterize the dialogues
between Ecological
Economics and Bioethics
to develop a conceptual
and practical framework
that fosters sustainable
and ethically responsible
economic growth.
Ecological
economics,
Bioethics.
Similarities, differences,
biophysical limits and
environmental ethics,
i n te rg e n e r a t i o n a l
justice, ethical
valuation of territory
and biodiversity,
inequality, and
distributive ethics.
Note: Process by researcher
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
191Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
These categories are exemplified in the analyzed literature. For instance, the notion
of 'biophysical limits' (Rockström et al., 2009) contrasts with bioethical critiques of
their violation (Maldonado, 2019), while the 'ethical valuation of biodiversity' appears
in economic models that internalize ecological costs.
Similarities
Both Ecological Economics and Bioethics adopt a complex approach (Alier &
Jusmet, 2015). Ecological Economics recognizes the links between the economy and
the environment, while Bioethics considers the ethical relationship between humans
and other forms of life. Both approaches share a concern for sustainability. Ecological
Economics supports economic practices respecting natural resource limits, while
Bioethics emphasizes preserving biodiversity and ensuring ethical balance in human
interventions in nature (Molina, 2013; Alier, 2011; 2009).
Moreover, both fields acknowledge the importance of intergenerational
responsibility. Ecological Economics highlights the need to preserve resources for
future generations, and Bioethics identifies the ethics of human actions concerning
future generations (Rojas & Lara, 2014; Naredo, 2003). The dialogue between these
disciplines reveals opportunities for deeper integration and the critical need for
interdisciplinary collaboration. The convergence of these fields promises more robust
and ethical approaches to sustainable development, recognizing the complexity of
current challenges (Sarmiento, 2013; Siurana, 2010).
Differences
Ecological Economics primarily focuses on the economic system and its relationship
with ecosystems, whereas Bioethics addresses ethical issues emerging in biology,
medicine, and technology, including but not limited to the environmental impact of
these disciplines (Sotomayor, 2007; Passet, 1996). Furthermore, Ecological Economics
tends to value nature in economic terms, considering ecosystem services, while
Bioethics may adopt a more intrinsic perspective, recognizing biodiversity's inherent
value regardless of its economic utility (Zarta, 2018; Useche, 2008).
Bioethics often places strong emphasis on autonomy and human rights, particularly
in biomedical research, while Ecological Economics seeks a balance between human
well-being and ecosystem health (Mohammadian, 2005; 2004). Aspirations for an
equitable and sustainable model respecting Earth's life diversity reflect a deeper
awareness of humans' connection to their environment. Ethical responsibility toward
all life forms and future generations becomes central to this approach, challenging
us to consider the long-term consequences of present actions (Kottow, 2023; León,
2020; Maldonado, 2018; 2017).
191Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
These categories are exemplified in the analyzed literature. For instance, the notion
of 'biophysical limits' (Rockström et al., 2009) contrasts with bioethical critiques of
their violation (Maldonado, 2019), while the 'ethical valuation of biodiversity' appears
in economic models that internalize ecological costs.
Similarities
Both Ecological Economics and Bioethics adopt a complex approach (Alier &
Jusmet, 2015). Ecological Economics recognizes the links between the economy and
the environment, while Bioethics considers the ethical relationship between humans
and other forms of life. Both approaches share a concern for sustainability. Ecological
Economics supports economic practices respecting natural resource limits, while
Bioethics emphasizes preserving biodiversity and ensuring ethical balance in human
interventions in nature (Molina, 2013; Alier, 2011; 2009).
Moreover, both fields acknowledge the importance of intergenerational
responsibility. Ecological Economics highlights the need to preserve resources for
future generations, and Bioethics identifies the ethics of human actions concerning
future generations (Rojas & Lara, 2014; Naredo, 2003). The dialogue between these
disciplines reveals opportunities for deeper integration and the critical need for
interdisciplinary collaboration. The convergence of these fields promises more robust
and ethical approaches to sustainable development, recognizing the complexity of
current challenges (Sarmiento, 2013; Siurana, 2010).
Differences
Ecological Economics primarily focuses on the economic system and its relationship
with ecosystems, whereas Bioethics addresses ethical issues emerging in biology,
medicine, and technology, including but not limited to the environmental impact of
these disciplines (Sotomayor, 2007; Passet, 1996). Furthermore, Ecological Economics
tends to value nature in economic terms, considering ecosystem services, while
Bioethics may adopt a more intrinsic perspective, recognizing biodiversity's inherent
value regardless of its economic utility (Zarta, 2018; Useche, 2008).
Bioethics often places strong emphasis on autonomy and human rights, particularly
in biomedical research, while Ecological Economics seeks a balance between human
well-being and ecosystem health (Mohammadian, 2005; 2004). Aspirations for an
equitable and sustainable model respecting Earth's life diversity reflect a deeper
awareness of humans' connection to their environment. Ethical responsibility toward
all life forms and future generations becomes central to this approach, challenging
us to consider the long-term consequences of present actions (Kottow, 2023; León,
2020; Maldonado, 2018; 2017).
AGRoPECUARIA
192 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Biophysical limits and environmental ethics
The links between biophysical limits and environmental ethics represent a key topic
in sustainability debates, particularly from the perspective of strong sustainability.
Biophysical limits, defined as the maximum capacities of ecosystems to absorb
human impacts and regenerate resources (Rodríguez, 2024; Rockström et al., 2009),
provide a scientific basis for restricting human activities within planetary boundaries.
From an ethical perspective, recognizing and respecting these limits is essential to
prevent irreversible degradation of ecological systems vital for life (Maldonado, 2019;
Baquedano Jer, 2013).
Strong sustainability posits that certain components of natural capital are
irreplaceable and must remain intact to ensure the continuity of critical ecosystem
services (Gómez, 2024; Turner et al., 2001). In this context, environmental ethics
promotes principles such as intrinsic respect for nature, the precautionary principle, and
intergenerational equity, challenging traditional narratives of economic development
based on unlimited growth (Maldonado, 2019; Rozzi, 2001).
Additionally, applying these ethical principles involves designing public policies
prioritizing the conservation of critical natural capital and developing sustainable
technologies respecting biophysical limits. For example, transitioning to energy
systems based on renewable sources not only addresses the physical constraints of
fossil fuels but also aligns with ethical responsibility toward future generations and
other species (Engelhardt, 2006).
Lastly, biophysical limits emphasize the importance of global governance
recognizing the interdependencies between ecosystems and human societies. This
approach demands decision-makers consider both ecosystems' carrying capacities and
ethical values ensuring equitable access to essential natural resources (Gómez et al.,
2024; Mejía, 2006). Integrating environmental ethics with scientific understanding
of biophysical limits provides a solid framework for transitioning toward genuine
sustainability.
Intergenerational justice
Intergenerational justice is an ethical principle aiming to ensure that future
generations enjoy environmental conditions and natural resources equivalent to
those available to current generations. This concept is fundamental to environmental
bioethics, as it emphasizes the responsibility of present actions on the well-being of
future generations (Correa, 2017; González, 2009).
In the realm of Ecological Economics, intergenerational justice translates into the
need to adopt policies and practices that secure the sustainability of natural resources.
192 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Biophysical limits and environmental ethics
The links between biophysical limits and environmental ethics represent a key topic
in sustainability debates, particularly from the perspective of strong sustainability.
Biophysical limits, defined as the maximum capacities of ecosystems to absorb
human impacts and regenerate resources (Rodríguez, 2024; Rockström et al., 2009),
provide a scientific basis for restricting human activities within planetary boundaries.
From an ethical perspective, recognizing and respecting these limits is essential to
prevent irreversible degradation of ecological systems vital for life (Maldonado, 2019;
Baquedano Jer, 2013).
Strong sustainability posits that certain components of natural capital are
irreplaceable and must remain intact to ensure the continuity of critical ecosystem
services (Gómez, 2024; Turner et al., 2001). In this context, environmental ethics
promotes principles such as intrinsic respect for nature, the precautionary principle, and
intergenerational equity, challenging traditional narratives of economic development
based on unlimited growth (Maldonado, 2019; Rozzi, 2001).
Additionally, applying these ethical principles involves designing public policies
prioritizing the conservation of critical natural capital and developing sustainable
technologies respecting biophysical limits. For example, transitioning to energy
systems based on renewable sources not only addresses the physical constraints of
fossil fuels but also aligns with ethical responsibility toward future generations and
other species (Engelhardt, 2006).
Lastly, biophysical limits emphasize the importance of global governance
recognizing the interdependencies between ecosystems and human societies. This
approach demands decision-makers consider both ecosystems' carrying capacities and
ethical values ensuring equitable access to essential natural resources (Gómez et al.,
2024; Mejía, 2006). Integrating environmental ethics with scientific understanding
of biophysical limits provides a solid framework for transitioning toward genuine
sustainability.
Intergenerational justice
Intergenerational justice is an ethical principle aiming to ensure that future
generations enjoy environmental conditions and natural resources equivalent to
those available to current generations. This concept is fundamental to environmental
bioethics, as it emphasizes the responsibility of present actions on the well-being of
future generations (Correa, 2017; González, 2009).
In the realm of Ecological Economics, intergenerational justice translates into the
need to adopt policies and practices that secure the sustainability of natural resources.
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
193Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
This involves acknowledging the biophysical limits of the planet and avoiding ecosystem
overexploitation, thereby guaranteeing that future generations can meet their needs
without compromising environmental integrity (Leyton, 2007; Leff, 2004).
Integrating intergenerational justice into Bioethics and Ecological Economics
requires a complex approach that considers ethical, economic, and ecological aspects.
This approach promotes adopting sustainable and equitable practices that respect the
rights of future generations and foster a coherent relationship between humanity and
the environment (Purvis et al., 2019; Pérez-Rincón, 2014).
Ethical valuation of territory and biodiversity
The ethical valuation of territory and biodiversity is a central aspect at the
intersection of bioethics and ecological economics. This approach recognizes that
ecosystems and species possess intrinsic value beyond their economic utility to
humans. Environmental ethics argues that biodiversity should be preserved not
only for its benefits but also for its inherent right to exist (Rauchecker & Chan, 2016;
Rozzi, 2001).
In the context of Ecological Economics, this ethical perspective is integrated into
economic models by recognizing the fundamental role of biodiversity and ecosystem
services in human well-being. However, traditional economic valuation methods
often capture only a fraction of the total value of goods and services associated with
biodiversity, leading to undervaluation and degradation
Environmental bioethics proposes a holistic vision that considers the
interrelationships between humans and nature, promoting an ethics of care and
responsibility toward the natural environment (Cribbs & Perera, 2017; González,
2009). This approach emphasizes the need for sustainable practices that respect the
biophysical limits of the planet and ensure biodiversity conservation for present and
future generations.
Incorporating the ethical valuation of territory and biodiversity into public policies
and economic planning is essential for promoting truly sustainable development. This
entails recognizing and respecting the intrinsic value of nature beyond its economic
utility and adopting management approaches that preserve the integrity of ecosystems
and biological diversity (Durante, 2018; Miles and Laar, 2018).
193Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
This involves acknowledging the biophysical limits of the planet and avoiding ecosystem
overexploitation, thereby guaranteeing that future generations can meet their needs
without compromising environmental integrity (Leyton, 2007; Leff, 2004).
Integrating intergenerational justice into Bioethics and Ecological Economics
requires a complex approach that considers ethical, economic, and ecological aspects.
This approach promotes adopting sustainable and equitable practices that respect the
rights of future generations and foster a coherent relationship between humanity and
the environment (Purvis et al., 2019; Pérez-Rincón, 2014).
Ethical valuation of territory and biodiversity
The ethical valuation of territory and biodiversity is a central aspect at the
intersection of bioethics and ecological economics. This approach recognizes that
ecosystems and species possess intrinsic value beyond their economic utility to
humans. Environmental ethics argues that biodiversity should be preserved not
only for its benefits but also for its inherent right to exist (Rauchecker & Chan, 2016;
Rozzi, 2001).
In the context of Ecological Economics, this ethical perspective is integrated into
economic models by recognizing the fundamental role of biodiversity and ecosystem
services in human well-being. However, traditional economic valuation methods
often capture only a fraction of the total value of goods and services associated with
biodiversity, leading to undervaluation and degradation
Environmental bioethics proposes a holistic vision that considers the
interrelationships between humans and nature, promoting an ethics of care and
responsibility toward the natural environment (Cribbs & Perera, 2017; González,
2009). This approach emphasizes the need for sustainable practices that respect the
biophysical limits of the planet and ensure biodiversity conservation for present and
future generations.
Incorporating the ethical valuation of territory and biodiversity into public policies
and economic planning is essential for promoting truly sustainable development. This
entails recognizing and respecting the intrinsic value of nature beyond its economic
utility and adopting management approaches that preserve the integrity of ecosystems
and biological diversity (Durante, 2018; Miles and Laar, 2018).
AGRoPECUARIA
194 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Inequality and distributive ethics
Inequality and distributive ethics are central topics between Bioethics and Ecological
Economics, especially from the perspective of strong sustainability. Distributive ethics
addresses how resources and benefits are allocated in a society, emphasizing justice
and equity in this distribution. In the context of environmental bioethics, this implies
ensuring that all communities, present and future, have equitable access to natural
resources and a healthy environment (Gordijn and Ten Have, 2018).
Ecological Economics, in turn, acknowledges that economic activities are
intrinsically linked to ecological systems and that unrestrained exploitation of natural
resources can lead to unequal distribution of benefits and environmental burdens.
This discipline advocates reevaluating conventional economic discourse (classical
and neoclassical schools), promoting models that integrate ecological and ethical
considerations into economic decision-making (Gracia, 2008; Leyton, 2007).
Strong sustainability holds that natural capital is essential and irreplaceable and
that its preservation is fundamental to long-term human and ecological well-being.
From this perspective, distributive ethics demands that public policies and economic
practices focus not only on efficiency and growth but also on intergenerational equity
and ecosystem protection. This involves adopting approaches that limit environmental
degradation and promote a fair distribution of resources, recognizing that the most
vulnerable communities are often the most affected by environmental issues (Martínez
et al., 2024; González, 2009).
Integrating distributive ethics into Bioethics and Ecological Economics requires
a commitment to social and environmental justice, recognizing that human health
and ecological integrity are deeply interconnected. This approach encourages adopting
policies that ensure equitable resource distribution and inclusive participation in
environmental decision-making, guaranteeing that the needs of present and future
generations are met sustainably and fairly (Haire, 2018; Gracia, 2014).
IV. DISCUSSION
The findings of this article align with Renk et al. (2021) Lee & Jung, 2019; Georgescu-
Roegen, (1975), who emphasize that Ecological Economics is based on the idea that
the economy is an inseparable part of ecosystems. Although both fields emphasize
intergenerational justice (Purvis et al., 2019), authors like Alier (2011) question whether
Bioethics sufficiently addresses global economic inequalities, revealing tensions
unaddressed in dominant literature. This perspective highlights the importance
of acknowledging biophysical limits and the interdependence between economic
activity and environmental health. Ecological Economics addresses critical issues
such as resource overexploitation, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation.
194 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Inequality and distributive ethics
Inequality and distributive ethics are central topics between Bioethics and Ecological
Economics, especially from the perspective of strong sustainability. Distributive ethics
addresses how resources and benefits are allocated in a society, emphasizing justice
and equity in this distribution. In the context of environmental bioethics, this implies
ensuring that all communities, present and future, have equitable access to natural
resources and a healthy environment (Gordijn and Ten Have, 2018).
Ecological Economics, in turn, acknowledges that economic activities are
intrinsically linked to ecological systems and that unrestrained exploitation of natural
resources can lead to unequal distribution of benefits and environmental burdens.
This discipline advocates reevaluating conventional economic discourse (classical
and neoclassical schools), promoting models that integrate ecological and ethical
considerations into economic decision-making (Gracia, 2008; Leyton, 2007).
Strong sustainability holds that natural capital is essential and irreplaceable and
that its preservation is fundamental to long-term human and ecological well-being.
From this perspective, distributive ethics demands that public policies and economic
practices focus not only on efficiency and growth but also on intergenerational equity
and ecosystem protection. This involves adopting approaches that limit environmental
degradation and promote a fair distribution of resources, recognizing that the most
vulnerable communities are often the most affected by environmental issues (Martínez
et al., 2024; González, 2009).
Integrating distributive ethics into Bioethics and Ecological Economics requires
a commitment to social and environmental justice, recognizing that human health
and ecological integrity are deeply interconnected. This approach encourages adopting
policies that ensure equitable resource distribution and inclusive participation in
environmental decision-making, guaranteeing that the needs of present and future
generations are met sustainably and fairly (Haire, 2018; Gracia, 2014).
IV. DISCUSSION
The findings of this article align with Renk et al. (2021) Lee & Jung, 2019; Georgescu-
Roegen, (1975), who emphasize that Ecological Economics is based on the idea that
the economy is an inseparable part of ecosystems. Although both fields emphasize
intergenerational justice (Purvis et al., 2019), authors like Alier (2011) question whether
Bioethics sufficiently addresses global economic inequalities, revealing tensions
unaddressed in dominant literature. This perspective highlights the importance
of acknowledging biophysical limits and the interdependence between economic
activity and environmental health. Ecological Economics addresses critical issues
such as resource overexploitation, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation.
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
195Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Similarly, this investigation resonates with Beauchamp & Childress (2001), who
argue that Bioethics addresses ethical issues related to life, including biomedical
research, healthcare, and human intervention in nature. Its primary focus is ensuring
that human actions respect autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice,
considering both humans and other life forms (Maldonado, 2023; Rincón, 2023).
In fact, this article concurs with Sganzerla et al. (2021); Laverde et al. (2020),
who assert that nature valuation in Ecological Economics is based not only on its
economic utility but also on its intrinsic value. Bioethics considers biodiversity's
intrinsic value but often focuses on the ethics of human intervention. Additionally,
the temporal perspective of Ecological Economics underscores the importance of
long-term sustainability and intergenerational responsibility. In contrast, Bioethics
often concentrates on present ethical issues but also addresses responsibility toward
future generations (Gómez, 2021; Cantú, 2020).
Moreover, the article aligns with the principles of Sánchez de la Iglesia (2020)
Hinkelammert & Mora (2008) emphasizing autonomy. Ecological Economics considers
autonomy regarding ecosystems' ability to sustain and regenerate. Conversely, Bioethics
places strong emphasis on human autonomy, particularly in decisions related to health
and biomedical research. Notably, the article also aligns with those advocating that
Ecological Economics uses tools such as ecosystem service valuation to integrate
environmental considerations into economic models. In contrast, Bioethics relies
on ethical principles to guide decision-making in fields like medicine and research
(Georgescu-Roegen, 1996; 1994; Amo, 2017).
Both Ecological Economics and Bioethics, committed to sustainability, positively
impact resource conservation and biodiversity preservation, promoting responsible
natural resource management and limiting indiscriminate exploitation of living
organisms (Cantú, 2021; Rodríguez et al., 2021). While Ecological Economics seeks
innovative solutions for economic development with minimal environmental impact,
Bioethics sets ethical boundaries in research, ensuring equitable benefit and burden
distribution (Maldonado, 2014; Alier, 2009).
Both fields emphasize valuing ecosystem services in economic models, recognizing
the critical role of natural resources, and promoting their sustainable management
(Rossi, 2017; Alier, 2011). They also highlight intergenerational equity, ensuring that
current economic decisions do not compromise future generations' well-being while
respecting biodiversity's intrinsic value and ecological systems' integrity (Hale et al.,
2019).
These perspectives propose ethical economic policies that acknowledge the
interdependence between human well-being and environmental balance, fostering
interdisciplinary research that aligns economic theory with ethical concerns in biology,
195Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Similarly, this investigation resonates with Beauchamp & Childress (2001), who
argue that Bioethics addresses ethical issues related to life, including biomedical
research, healthcare, and human intervention in nature. Its primary focus is ensuring
that human actions respect autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice,
considering both humans and other life forms (Maldonado, 2023; Rincón, 2023).
In fact, this article concurs with Sganzerla et al. (2021); Laverde et al. (2020),
who assert that nature valuation in Ecological Economics is based not only on its
economic utility but also on its intrinsic value. Bioethics considers biodiversity's
intrinsic value but often focuses on the ethics of human intervention. Additionally,
the temporal perspective of Ecological Economics underscores the importance of
long-term sustainability and intergenerational responsibility. In contrast, Bioethics
often concentrates on present ethical issues but also addresses responsibility toward
future generations (Gómez, 2021; Cantú, 2020).
Moreover, the article aligns with the principles of Sánchez de la Iglesia (2020)
Hinkelammert & Mora (2008) emphasizing autonomy. Ecological Economics considers
autonomy regarding ecosystems' ability to sustain and regenerate. Conversely, Bioethics
places strong emphasis on human autonomy, particularly in decisions related to health
and biomedical research. Notably, the article also aligns with those advocating that
Ecological Economics uses tools such as ecosystem service valuation to integrate
environmental considerations into economic models. In contrast, Bioethics relies
on ethical principles to guide decision-making in fields like medicine and research
(Georgescu-Roegen, 1996; 1994; Amo, 2017).
Both Ecological Economics and Bioethics, committed to sustainability, positively
impact resource conservation and biodiversity preservation, promoting responsible
natural resource management and limiting indiscriminate exploitation of living
organisms (Cantú, 2021; Rodríguez et al., 2021). While Ecological Economics seeks
innovative solutions for economic development with minimal environmental impact,
Bioethics sets ethical boundaries in research, ensuring equitable benefit and burden
distribution (Maldonado, 2014; Alier, 2009).
Both fields emphasize valuing ecosystem services in economic models, recognizing
the critical role of natural resources, and promoting their sustainable management
(Rossi, 2017; Alier, 2011). They also highlight intergenerational equity, ensuring that
current economic decisions do not compromise future generations' well-being while
respecting biodiversity's intrinsic value and ecological systems' integrity (Hale et al.,
2019).
These perspectives propose ethical economic policies that acknowledge the
interdependence between human well-being and environmental balance, fostering
interdisciplinary research that aligns economic theory with ethical concerns in biology,
AGRoPECUARIA
196 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
medicine, and technology (Rosas, 2012). Moreover, they promote educational and
awareness programs that strengthen informed citizenship and encourage ethical
and sustainable decision-making, consolidating collaboration among experts in both
fields (Gómez & Barbosa, 2024; Gómez, 2020).
V. CONCLUSIONS
• The convergence between Ecological Economics and Bioethics emphasizes an
integrative approach that combines ethical principles with ecological analysis
to address sustainability challenges. The proposed integration requires concrete
policies, such as taxes on resource overexploitation, and interdisciplinary
educational frameworks. This would translate ethical principles into
measurable actions, bridging the gap between theory and practice. These
connections support policies and practices that balance human well-being
with environmental preservation, recognizing the interdependence between
economic and ecological systems as a crucial element for intergenerational
equity and ecosystem resilience.
• Both fields highlight the importance of respecting the planet’s biophysical
limits and valuing biodiversity not merely from an economic perspective but
also from an intrinsic ethical standpoint. This necessitates a shift toward
development models that prioritize the conservation of critical natural
capital, employing technologies and strategies that minimize environmental
degradation while respecting the dignity of all forms of life.
• The interdisciplinary dialogue between Ecological Economics and Bioethics
reshapes decision-making frameworks, endowing them with greater ethical
robustness and sustainability. Furthermore, it encourages the implementation
of educational and awareness programs that foster an informed and
committed citizenry, capable of making decisions aligned with the principles
of environmental justice and strong sustainability.
VI. REFERENCES
Aliciardi, M. (2009). ¿Existe una ecobioética o bioética ambiental? Revista
Latinoamericana de Bioética, 9(16), 8-27. https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.1089
Aguilera, M., Rincón, M., & Gómez, D. (2020). Bioeconomía, una alternativa de
investigación en administración y afines. En M. Aguilera-Prado & M. Rincón-
Moreno (Eds.). Temas y métodos de investigación en negocios, administración,
mercadeo y contaduría (pp. 193-218). Editorial Uniagustiniana. https://doi.org
/10.28970/9789585498426.06
196 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
medicine, and technology (Rosas, 2012). Moreover, they promote educational and
awareness programs that strengthen informed citizenship and encourage ethical
and sustainable decision-making, consolidating collaboration among experts in both
fields (Gómez & Barbosa, 2024; Gómez, 2020).
V. CONCLUSIONS
• The convergence between Ecological Economics and Bioethics emphasizes an
integrative approach that combines ethical principles with ecological analysis
to address sustainability challenges. The proposed integration requires concrete
policies, such as taxes on resource overexploitation, and interdisciplinary
educational frameworks. This would translate ethical principles into
measurable actions, bridging the gap between theory and practice. These
connections support policies and practices that balance human well-being
with environmental preservation, recognizing the interdependence between
economic and ecological systems as a crucial element for intergenerational
equity and ecosystem resilience.
• Both fields highlight the importance of respecting the planet’s biophysical
limits and valuing biodiversity not merely from an economic perspective but
also from an intrinsic ethical standpoint. This necessitates a shift toward
development models that prioritize the conservation of critical natural
capital, employing technologies and strategies that minimize environmental
degradation while respecting the dignity of all forms of life.
• The interdisciplinary dialogue between Ecological Economics and Bioethics
reshapes decision-making frameworks, endowing them with greater ethical
robustness and sustainability. Furthermore, it encourages the implementation
of educational and awareness programs that foster an informed and
committed citizenry, capable of making decisions aligned with the principles
of environmental justice and strong sustainability.
VI. REFERENCES
Aliciardi, M. (2009). ¿Existe una ecobioética o bioética ambiental? Revista
Latinoamericana de Bioética, 9(16), 8-27. https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.1089
Aguilera, M., Rincón, M., & Gómez, D. (2020). Bioeconomía, una alternativa de
investigación en administración y afines. En M. Aguilera-Prado & M. Rincón-
Moreno (Eds.). Temas y métodos de investigación en negocios, administración,
mercadeo y contaduría (pp. 193-218). Editorial Uniagustiniana. https://doi.org
/10.28970/9789585498426.06
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
197Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Aguilera, M. (2020). Previsiones, descripciones y propuestas de la economía
ecológica contra el cambio climático. En L. G. Duquino Rojas & S. Nail (Eds.),
Sustentabilidad y conciencia ambiental urbana en Abya Yala (Latinoamérica) (pp.
89-112). Editorial Uniagustiniana. https://doi.org/10.28970/9789585498457.03
Alier, J., & Jusmet, J. (2015). Economía ecológica y política ambiental. Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Alier, J. (2011). Macroeconomía ecológica, metabolismo social y justicia ambiental.
Revista de Historia Ambiental, Latinoamericana y Caribeña (RHA), 8, 244-281.
https://doi.org/10.55919/rha.v8i1.78
Alier, J. (2009). Conflictos ecológicos por extracción de recursos y por producción de
residuos. Letras verdes, (3), 8-10. https://doi.org/10.17141/letrasverdes.3.2009.916
Amo, R. (2017). Aspectos epistemológicos de la relación entre Bioética y ecología:
algunas lecciones del pensamiento de Edgar Morin. Revista Iberoamericana de
Bioética, (4). https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i04.y2017.003
Asnariz, T. (2002). ¿De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de Bioética? Revista selecciones
de Bioética, (194), 39-57.
Baquedano Jer, S. (2013). Desafíos y límites de la Ética Ambiental en un mundo
superpoblado. Dilemata, 5(11), 39-51. https://www.dilemata.net.
Barbosa, E., Vargas, H., & Gómez, D. (2020). Breve estudio bibliométrico sobre
economía solidaria. Cooperativismo y Desarrollo, 28(118), 1–20. https://doi.
org/10.16925/2382-4220.2020.03.05
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5.ª ed). University
Press.
Cantú, P. C. (2021). Configuraciones bioéticas y ambientales en la modernidad para
acceder a la sustentabilidad. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (17), 01–12.
https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i17.y2021.006
Cantú, P. C. (2020). Deliberación del cambio climático desde la bioética global.
Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (13), 01–11. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.
i13.y2020.004
Carpintero, O. (2006). La bioeconomía de Georgescu Roegen. Montesinos Ensayo.
Casado, M. (2011). Bioética y educación sobre la necesidad de adoptar una concepción de
la bioética flexible y que promueva la educación en los principios de la Declaración
Universal sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos. Revista latinoamericana de
Bioética, 11(21), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.996
Castro, L., Rincón, M. & Gómez, D. (2017). Educación para la salud: una mirada
desde la antropología. Revista Ciencias de la Salud, 15(1), 145-163. https://doi.
org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.5387
Correa, F. (2017). Desarrollo sostenible. Revisión teórica desde la economía Ediciones
UNAULA.
197Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Aguilera, M. (2020). Previsiones, descripciones y propuestas de la economía
ecológica contra el cambio climático. En L. G. Duquino Rojas & S. Nail (Eds.),
Sustentabilidad y conciencia ambiental urbana en Abya Yala (Latinoamérica) (pp.
89-112). Editorial Uniagustiniana. https://doi.org/10.28970/9789585498457.03
Alier, J., & Jusmet, J. (2015). Economía ecológica y política ambiental. Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Alier, J. (2011). Macroeconomía ecológica, metabolismo social y justicia ambiental.
Revista de Historia Ambiental, Latinoamericana y Caribeña (RHA), 8, 244-281.
https://doi.org/10.55919/rha.v8i1.78
Alier, J. (2009). Conflictos ecológicos por extracción de recursos y por producción de
residuos. Letras verdes, (3), 8-10. https://doi.org/10.17141/letrasverdes.3.2009.916
Amo, R. (2017). Aspectos epistemológicos de la relación entre Bioética y ecología:
algunas lecciones del pensamiento de Edgar Morin. Revista Iberoamericana de
Bioética, (4). https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i04.y2017.003
Asnariz, T. (2002). ¿De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de Bioética? Revista selecciones
de Bioética, (194), 39-57.
Baquedano Jer, S. (2013). Desafíos y límites de la Ética Ambiental en un mundo
superpoblado. Dilemata, 5(11), 39-51. https://www.dilemata.net.
Barbosa, E., Vargas, H., & Gómez, D. (2020). Breve estudio bibliométrico sobre
economía solidaria. Cooperativismo y Desarrollo, 28(118), 1–20. https://doi.
org/10.16925/2382-4220.2020.03.05
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5.ª ed). University
Press.
Cantú, P. C. (2021). Configuraciones bioéticas y ambientales en la modernidad para
acceder a la sustentabilidad. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (17), 01–12.
https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i17.y2021.006
Cantú, P. C. (2020). Deliberación del cambio climático desde la bioética global.
Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (13), 01–11. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.
i13.y2020.004
Carpintero, O. (2006). La bioeconomía de Georgescu Roegen. Montesinos Ensayo.
Casado, M. (2011). Bioética y educación sobre la necesidad de adoptar una concepción de
la bioética flexible y que promueva la educación en los principios de la Declaración
Universal sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos. Revista latinoamericana de
Bioética, 11(21), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.996
Castro, L., Rincón, M. & Gómez, D. (2017). Educación para la salud: una mirada
desde la antropología. Revista Ciencias de la Salud, 15(1), 145-163. https://doi.
org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.5387
Correa, F. (2017). Desarrollo sostenible. Revisión teórica desde la economía Ediciones
UNAULA.
AGRoPECUARIA
198 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Cribbs, A., & Perera, S. (2017). Science and Bioethics of CRISPRCas 9 Gene Editing:
An Analysis Towards Separating Facts and Fic. The Yale Journal of Biology
and Medicine 90(4), 635-634. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC5733851/
Durante, C. (2018). Bioethics and multiculturalism: nuancing the discussion. Journal
of Medical Ethics, 44, 77-83. https://doi.org/10.1136/ medethics-2015-103334
Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (Ed.). (2006). Global bioethics: The collapse of consensus. M&M
Scrivener Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1996). La ley de la entropía y el proceso económico. Fundación
Argentaria.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1994). Qué puede enseñar a los economistas la termodinámica
y la biología. En F. Aguilera Klink (Ed.), De la economía ambiental a la economía
ecológica (pp. 188-198). Fuhem/Icaria.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energía y mitos económicos. El Trimestre Económico,
42(168), 779-836.
Gómez, D., Barbosa, E., Martínez, C., & Avellaneda, Z. (2024). Economía solidaria
y educación: Una alianza para el desarrollo sostenible. Revista Estudios en
Educación, 7(12), 184-204. http://ojs.umc.cl/index.php/estudioseneducacion/
article/view/366
Gómez, D. (2024). Diálogos entre Agrociencias y Economía Solidaria: perspectivas
para un desarrollo rural sostenible. GIZAEKOA - Revista Vasca de Economía
Social, 21, 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1387/gizaekoa.26249
Gómez, D., & Barbosa, E. (2024). Sostenibilidad ambiental: diálogos entre la economía
ecológica, el territorio y la territorialidad en el desarrollo resiliente. Intropica,
Postprint. https://doi.org/10.21676/23897864.5615
Gómez, D. & Rincón, H. (2023). Cambio y aprendizaje organizacional, revisión
documental. Revista CIES.14 (2), 27-49.
Gómez, D. (2023). Metabolismo social de la agroindustria de la palma de aceite en el territorio
de Aracataca Magdalena Colombia (1965-2018) [Tesis doctoral, Universidad de la
Salle, Bogotá, Colombia]. https://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/doct_agrociencias/14
Gómez, D. (2021). Sostenibilidad. Apuntes sobre sostenibilidad fuerte y débil, capital
manufacturado y natural. Inclusión y Desarrollo, 8(1), 131-143. https://doi.
org/10.26620/uniminuto.inclusion.8.1.2021.131-143
Gómez, D. (2020). Metabolismo social y bioética: Un diálogo de saberes. Revista
Iberoamericana de Bioética, (12), 01–11. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i12.
y2020.010
González, J. (2009). ¿Existe una eco-bioética o bioética ambiental? Revista Latinoamericana
de Bioética, 9(1), 8-27. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1270/127020308002.pdf
198 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Cribbs, A., & Perera, S. (2017). Science and Bioethics of CRISPRCas 9 Gene Editing:
An Analysis Towards Separating Facts and Fic. The Yale Journal of Biology
and Medicine 90(4), 635-634. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC5733851/
Durante, C. (2018). Bioethics and multiculturalism: nuancing the discussion. Journal
of Medical Ethics, 44, 77-83. https://doi.org/10.1136/ medethics-2015-103334
Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (Ed.). (2006). Global bioethics: The collapse of consensus. M&M
Scrivener Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1996). La ley de la entropía y el proceso económico. Fundación
Argentaria.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1994). Qué puede enseñar a los economistas la termodinámica
y la biología. En F. Aguilera Klink (Ed.), De la economía ambiental a la economía
ecológica (pp. 188-198). Fuhem/Icaria.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energía y mitos económicos. El Trimestre Económico,
42(168), 779-836.
Gómez, D., Barbosa, E., Martínez, C., & Avellaneda, Z. (2024). Economía solidaria
y educación: Una alianza para el desarrollo sostenible. Revista Estudios en
Educación, 7(12), 184-204. http://ojs.umc.cl/index.php/estudioseneducacion/
article/view/366
Gómez, D. (2024). Diálogos entre Agrociencias y Economía Solidaria: perspectivas
para un desarrollo rural sostenible. GIZAEKOA - Revista Vasca de Economía
Social, 21, 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1387/gizaekoa.26249
Gómez, D., & Barbosa, E. (2024). Sostenibilidad ambiental: diálogos entre la economía
ecológica, el territorio y la territorialidad en el desarrollo resiliente. Intropica,
Postprint. https://doi.org/10.21676/23897864.5615
Gómez, D. & Rincón, H. (2023). Cambio y aprendizaje organizacional, revisión
documental. Revista CIES.14 (2), 27-49.
Gómez, D. (2023). Metabolismo social de la agroindustria de la palma de aceite en el territorio
de Aracataca Magdalena Colombia (1965-2018) [Tesis doctoral, Universidad de la
Salle, Bogotá, Colombia]. https://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/doct_agrociencias/14
Gómez, D. (2021). Sostenibilidad. Apuntes sobre sostenibilidad fuerte y débil, capital
manufacturado y natural. Inclusión y Desarrollo, 8(1), 131-143. https://doi.
org/10.26620/uniminuto.inclusion.8.1.2021.131-143
Gómez, D. (2020). Metabolismo social y bioética: Un diálogo de saberes. Revista
Iberoamericana de Bioética, (12), 01–11. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i12.
y2020.010
González, J. (2009). ¿Existe una eco-bioética o bioética ambiental? Revista Latinoamericana
de Bioética, 9(1), 8-27. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1270/127020308002.pdf
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
199Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Gordijn, B., and Ten Have, H. (2018). The trilemma of designing international
bioethics curricula. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21(1), 1-2. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9821-y
Gracia, D. (2008). Fundamentos de Bioética. Editorial Triacastela.
Gracia, D. (2014). History of Global Bioethics. In: Ten Have, H. and B. Gordijn (Edit.)
Handbook of Global Bioethics. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-007-2512-6_64
Gorz, A. (2012). Ecológica. Clave Intelectual.
Haire, B. (2018). Aspects of disaster research ethics applicable to other contexts. Journal
of Medical Ethics, (44), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103843
Hale, J., Legun, K., Campbell, H., & Carolan, M. (2019). Social sustainability
indicators as performance, Geoforum, 103, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2019.03.008
Hinkelammert, F., & Mora, H. (2008). Hacia una economía para la vida. Preludio para
una reconstrucción de la economía. Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica.
Kottow, M. (2023). Autonomía relacional en bioética. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética,
(22), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i22.y2023.001
Laverde, M., Almanza, C., Gómez, D., & Serrano, C. (2020). El Capital Relacional como
Recurso Diferencial y Valioso para las Empresas. Revista Podium, (37), 57–70.
https://doi.org/10.31095/podium.2020.37.5
Lee, K. & Jung, H. (2019). Dynamic semantic network analysis for identifying the
concept and scope of social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 233,
1510–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.390
Leff, E. (2004). Saber ambiental: sustentabilidad, racionalidad, complejidad, poder. Siglo
XXI editores y Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en ciencias y
Humanidades PNUMA.
León, F. (2020). Bioética y medio ambiente. Fundación interuniversitaria ciencia
y vida centro de bioética – UCEN. https://www.pucv.cl/uuaa/site/
docs/20200809/20200809192304/20_bio__tica_y_medio_ambiente.pdf
Leyton, F. (2007). Ética Ecológica y Bioética: algunos apuntes. Universidad de Barcelona.
https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/11404/1/DEA%20Fabiola%20
Leyton.pdf
Maldonado, C. (2023). La bioeconomía como un enfoque de complejidad y crítico
de la función de producción. En A. Rincón-Ruiz (Ed). Bioeconomía: Miradas
múltiples, reflexiones y retos para un país en crisis estructural. Un libro sobre
economías diversas, y economías “otras” para la vida. Centro Editorial – Facultad
de Ciencias Económicas. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Maldonado, C. (2019). Bioética y Complejidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ensayo.
http://critica.cl/ciencia/boetica-y-complejidad
199Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Gordijn, B., and Ten Have, H. (2018). The trilemma of designing international
bioethics curricula. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21(1), 1-2. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9821-y
Gracia, D. (2008). Fundamentos de Bioética. Editorial Triacastela.
Gracia, D. (2014). History of Global Bioethics. In: Ten Have, H. and B. Gordijn (Edit.)
Handbook of Global Bioethics. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-007-2512-6_64
Gorz, A. (2012). Ecológica. Clave Intelectual.
Haire, B. (2018). Aspects of disaster research ethics applicable to other contexts. Journal
of Medical Ethics, (44), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103843
Hale, J., Legun, K., Campbell, H., & Carolan, M. (2019). Social sustainability
indicators as performance, Geoforum, 103, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2019.03.008
Hinkelammert, F., & Mora, H. (2008). Hacia una economía para la vida. Preludio para
una reconstrucción de la economía. Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica.
Kottow, M. (2023). Autonomía relacional en bioética. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética,
(22), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i22.y2023.001
Laverde, M., Almanza, C., Gómez, D., & Serrano, C. (2020). El Capital Relacional como
Recurso Diferencial y Valioso para las Empresas. Revista Podium, (37), 57–70.
https://doi.org/10.31095/podium.2020.37.5
Lee, K. & Jung, H. (2019). Dynamic semantic network analysis for identifying the
concept and scope of social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 233,
1510–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.390
Leff, E. (2004). Saber ambiental: sustentabilidad, racionalidad, complejidad, poder. Siglo
XXI editores y Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en ciencias y
Humanidades PNUMA.
León, F. (2020). Bioética y medio ambiente. Fundación interuniversitaria ciencia
y vida centro de bioética – UCEN. https://www.pucv.cl/uuaa/site/
docs/20200809/20200809192304/20_bio__tica_y_medio_ambiente.pdf
Leyton, F. (2007). Ética Ecológica y Bioética: algunos apuntes. Universidad de Barcelona.
https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/11404/1/DEA%20Fabiola%20
Leyton.pdf
Maldonado, C. (2023). La bioeconomía como un enfoque de complejidad y crítico
de la función de producción. En A. Rincón-Ruiz (Ed). Bioeconomía: Miradas
múltiples, reflexiones y retos para un país en crisis estructural. Un libro sobre
economías diversas, y economías “otras” para la vida. Centro Editorial – Facultad
de Ciencias Económicas. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Maldonado, C. (2019). Bioética y Complejidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ensayo.
http://critica.cl/ciencia/boetica-y-complejidad
AGRoPECUARIA
200 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Maldonado, C. (2018). Bioeconomía, Biodesarrollo y civilización. Un mapa de problemas
y soluciones. En Epistemologías del Sur para germinar alternativas de desarrollo.
Debate entre Enrique Leff, Carlos Maldonado y Horacio Machado (pp. 57-81).
Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
Maldonado, C. (2017). La extraña idea del desarrollo. Genealogía de un concepto.
Pensamiento Americano, 10(18), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.21803/pensam.v10i18.50
Maldonado, C. (2014). Biodesarrollo y complejidad. Propuesta de un modelo teórico.
En M. Eschenhaguen, Alternativas al desarrollo (pp. 71-94). UR-PUB.
Maldonado, C. (2015). Complejidad de la Bioética. Revista Thelos, 10(1),136-145.
https://thelos.utem.cl/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2021/12/revista-thelos-
vol10-n1-2015.pdf
Maldonado, C. (2014). ¿Qué significa la complejización de la Bioética? En Cátedra Gerardo
Molina sobre bioética. Universidad Libre (en prensa).
Maldonado, C. (2012). Crisis de la bioética y la bioética en medio de la crisis. Revista
Latinoamericana de Bioética, 12(22), 112-123. https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.985
Maldonado, C., Fonseca Chaparro, M. E., Moreno Villamizar, Z., & Urrea Mora, F.
C. (2006). Historia y fundamentos de la bioético: en camino hacia la biopolítica.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Miles, S. H., & Laar, A. (2018). Bioethics North and South: Creating a common
ground. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 4, 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jemep.2017.12.004
Martínez, C., Gómez, D., Barbosa, E., & Avellaneda, Z. (2024). Tendencias emergentes:
diálogos entre la sostenibilidad ambiental en la gestión de proyectos de
innovación social para un futuro sostenible. Ciencia y Sociedad, 49(2), 77-87.
https://revistas.intec.edu.do/index.php/ciso/article/view/3034
Mejía, J. (2006). Educación ambiental: reflexiones y propuestas. Revista de Educación,
341, 119-140.
Molina, N. (2013). La bioética: sus principios y propósitos, para un mundo tecnocientífico,
multicultural y diverso. Revista Colombiana de Bioética, 8(2) 18-37. https://doi.
org/10.18270/rcb.v8i2.791
Mohammadian, M. (2005). La bioeconomía: un nuevo paradigma socioeconómico para
el siglo XXI. Encuentros Multidisciplinares, 7(19), 57-70. http://www.encuentros-
multidisciplinares.org/Revistan%BA19/Mansour%20Mohammadian.pdf
Mohammadian, M. (2004). La bioeconomía: el nuevo paradigma socioeconómico para el siglo
XXI. Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Naredo, J. (2006). Raíces económicas del deterioro ecológico y social. Más allá de los dogmas.
Siglo XXI Editores, S. A.
Naredo, J. (2003). La economía en evolución. Historia y perspectiva de las categorías básicas
del pensamiento de la economía. Siglo XX Editores, S. A.
200 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Maldonado, C. (2018). Bioeconomía, Biodesarrollo y civilización. Un mapa de problemas
y soluciones. En Epistemologías del Sur para germinar alternativas de desarrollo.
Debate entre Enrique Leff, Carlos Maldonado y Horacio Machado (pp. 57-81).
Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
Maldonado, C. (2017). La extraña idea del desarrollo. Genealogía de un concepto.
Pensamiento Americano, 10(18), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.21803/pensam.v10i18.50
Maldonado, C. (2014). Biodesarrollo y complejidad. Propuesta de un modelo teórico.
En M. Eschenhaguen, Alternativas al desarrollo (pp. 71-94). UR-PUB.
Maldonado, C. (2015). Complejidad de la Bioética. Revista Thelos, 10(1),136-145.
https://thelos.utem.cl/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2021/12/revista-thelos-
vol10-n1-2015.pdf
Maldonado, C. (2014). ¿Qué significa la complejización de la Bioética? En Cátedra Gerardo
Molina sobre bioética. Universidad Libre (en prensa).
Maldonado, C. (2012). Crisis de la bioética y la bioética en medio de la crisis. Revista
Latinoamericana de Bioética, 12(22), 112-123. https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.985
Maldonado, C., Fonseca Chaparro, M. E., Moreno Villamizar, Z., & Urrea Mora, F.
C. (2006). Historia y fundamentos de la bioético: en camino hacia la biopolítica.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Miles, S. H., & Laar, A. (2018). Bioethics North and South: Creating a common
ground. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 4, 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jemep.2017.12.004
Martínez, C., Gómez, D., Barbosa, E., & Avellaneda, Z. (2024). Tendencias emergentes:
diálogos entre la sostenibilidad ambiental en la gestión de proyectos de
innovación social para un futuro sostenible. Ciencia y Sociedad, 49(2), 77-87.
https://revistas.intec.edu.do/index.php/ciso/article/view/3034
Mejía, J. (2006). Educación ambiental: reflexiones y propuestas. Revista de Educación,
341, 119-140.
Molina, N. (2013). La bioética: sus principios y propósitos, para un mundo tecnocientífico,
multicultural y diverso. Revista Colombiana de Bioética, 8(2) 18-37. https://doi.
org/10.18270/rcb.v8i2.791
Mohammadian, M. (2005). La bioeconomía: un nuevo paradigma socioeconómico para
el siglo XXI. Encuentros Multidisciplinares, 7(19), 57-70. http://www.encuentros-
multidisciplinares.org/Revistan%BA19/Mansour%20Mohammadian.pdf
Mohammadian, M. (2004). La bioeconomía: el nuevo paradigma socioeconómico para el siglo
XXI. Instituto de Ciencias Ambientales. Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Naredo, J. (2006). Raíces económicas del deterioro ecológico y social. Más allá de los dogmas.
Siglo XXI Editores, S. A.
Naredo, J. (2003). La economía en evolución. Historia y perspectiva de las categorías básicas
del pensamiento de la economía. Siglo XX Editores, S. A.
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
201Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Oliveira, M., & Osman, Z. (2017). Pluralismo bioético: contribuições latino-americanas
para uma bioética em perspectiva decolonial. Revista Bioética 25(1), 52-60.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422017251166
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C.
D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J.,
Grimsha, J., Hro´bjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson,
E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, T., Thomas, A. C.,
Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: una
guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española
de Cardiología, 74(9), 790-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
Passet, R. (1996). Principios de bioeconomía. Fundación Argentaria.
Pérez-Rincón, M. (2014). Conflictos ambientales en Colombia: inventario,
caracterización y análisis. En L. J. Garay Salamanca (Ed), Minería en Colombia:
control público, memoria y justicia socio-ecológica, movimientos sociales y
posconflicto (pp. 253-325. Contraloría General de la República de Colombi
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search
of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Rauchecker, M., & Chan, J. (2016). Las luchas por la sustentabilidad desde abajo:
hacia una nueva agenda de investigación. En M. Rauchecker y J. Chan (Eds.),
Sustentabilidad desde abajo. Luchas desde el género y la etnicidad (pp. 11-30).
CLACSO.
Rendón, J., & Gómez, D. (2022). Paisaje, territorio y agroindustria: El caso de la palma de
aceite en Aracataca (Magdalena, Colombia). En G. Correa (Ed.), Las agrociencias
en la dimensión de paisajes sostenibles (pp. 121-143). Universidad de La Salle.
Renk, V., Catellain, M., & Enns, C. (2021). Bioética ambiental: aproximações entre Fritz
Jahr e Van R. Potter. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (17), 01–13. https://
doi.org/10.14422/rib.i17.y2021.003
Rincón, A. (Ed). 2023. Bioeconomía: Miradas múltiples, reflexiones y retos para un país
en crisis estructural. Un libro sobre economías diversas, y economías “otras” para la
vida. Centro Editorial – Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Universidad Nacional
de Colombia.
Rodríguez, D. (2024). Metabolic Profile of “Guineo Paso” Aracataca Magdalena
Colombia. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(10), e08748. https://doi.
org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n10-290
Rodríguez, D., Laverde, M., & Pérez, E. (2021). Short Commercialization Circuits in
Local Supply Chains: Economic Revival in the Pandemic. South Asian Journal of
Social Studies and Economics, 12(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9734/sajsse/2021/
v12i230299
201Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Oliveira, M., & Osman, Z. (2017). Pluralismo bioético: contribuições latino-americanas
para uma bioética em perspectiva decolonial. Revista Bioética 25(1), 52-60.
https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-80422017251166
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C.
D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J.,
Grimsha, J., Hro´bjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson,
E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, T., Thomas, A. C.,
Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: una
guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española
de Cardiología, 74(9), 790-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
Passet, R. (1996). Principios de bioeconomía. Fundación Argentaria.
Pérez-Rincón, M. (2014). Conflictos ambientales en Colombia: inventario,
caracterización y análisis. En L. J. Garay Salamanca (Ed), Minería en Colombia:
control público, memoria y justicia socio-ecológica, movimientos sociales y
posconflicto (pp. 253-325. Contraloría General de la República de Colombi
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search
of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Rauchecker, M., & Chan, J. (2016). Las luchas por la sustentabilidad desde abajo:
hacia una nueva agenda de investigación. En M. Rauchecker y J. Chan (Eds.),
Sustentabilidad desde abajo. Luchas desde el género y la etnicidad (pp. 11-30).
CLACSO.
Rendón, J., & Gómez, D. (2022). Paisaje, territorio y agroindustria: El caso de la palma de
aceite en Aracataca (Magdalena, Colombia). En G. Correa (Ed.), Las agrociencias
en la dimensión de paisajes sostenibles (pp. 121-143). Universidad de La Salle.
Renk, V., Catellain, M., & Enns, C. (2021). Bioética ambiental: aproximações entre Fritz
Jahr e Van R. Potter. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (17), 01–13. https://
doi.org/10.14422/rib.i17.y2021.003
Rincón, A. (Ed). 2023. Bioeconomía: Miradas múltiples, reflexiones y retos para un país
en crisis estructural. Un libro sobre economías diversas, y economías “otras” para la
vida. Centro Editorial – Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Universidad Nacional
de Colombia.
Rodríguez, D. (2024). Metabolic Profile of “Guineo Paso” Aracataca Magdalena
Colombia. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 18(10), e08748. https://doi.
org/10.24857/rgsa.v18n10-290
Rodríguez, D., Laverde, M., & Pérez, E. (2021). Short Commercialization Circuits in
Local Supply Chains: Economic Revival in the Pandemic. South Asian Journal of
Social Studies and Economics, 12(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9734/sajsse/2021/
v12i230299
AGRoPECUARIA
202 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., & Foley,
J. A. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for
humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32.
Rosas, M. (2012). Economía Ecológica y solidaria: rumbo a una propuesta teoría
integrada que se visualice las rutas hacia la transición. Revista Iberoamericana
de Economía Ecológica, 18, 89-103. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Revibec/
article/view/253533
Rojas, A., & Lara, L. (2014). ¿Ética, bioética o ética médica? Revista Chilena
de Enfermedades Respiratorias, 30(2), 91-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/
S0717-73482014000200005
Rossi, E. (2017). Un futuro por construir: la propuesta del ambientalismo moderno.
Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (4). https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i04.
y2017.001
Rozzi, R. (2001). Ética ambiental latinoamericana: raíces y ramas. Revista Chilena de
Historia Natural, 74(4), 871-887.
Rushforth, A. (2016). All or nothing? Debating the role of evaluative bibliometrics in
the research system. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 230-231. https://doi.org/10.1093/
reseval/rvw004
Sánchez de la Iglesia, E. (2020). Bioética y educación ambiental como compromiso
para la sostenibilidad. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (13), 01–10. https://
doi.org/10.14422/rib.i13.y2020.005
Sarmiento, P. (2013). Bioética ambiental y ecopedagogía: una tarea pendiente. Acta
bioethica, 19(1), 29-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2013000100004
Siurana, J. (2010). Los principios de la bioética y el seguimiento de una
bioética intercultural. Veritas, (22), 121-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/
S0718-92732010000100006
Sganzerla, A., Zanella, D., & Graeser, V. (2021). Potter e o equilibrio do ecossistema
como fundamento da moralidade da bioética. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética,
(17), 01–13. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i17.y2021.001
Sotomayor, M. A. (2007). Algunas consideraciones en torno a la bioética y a la
investigación científica biomédica. Revista Chilena de Enfermedades Respiratorias,
23(1), 7-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73482007000100001
Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., & Bateman, I. (2001). Economía ambiental: teoría y práctica.
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Useche, O. (2008). Los nuevos sentidos del desarrollo. Ciudadanías emergentes, paz y
reconstrucción. Universidad Minuto de Dios.
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize co-occurrence data? An analysis
of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 60, 1.635-1.651.
202 CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD, Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E., & Foley,
J. A. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for
humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32.
Rosas, M. (2012). Economía Ecológica y solidaria: rumbo a una propuesta teoría
integrada que se visualice las rutas hacia la transición. Revista Iberoamericana
de Economía Ecológica, 18, 89-103. https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Revibec/
article/view/253533
Rojas, A., & Lara, L. (2014). ¿Ética, bioética o ética médica? Revista Chilena
de Enfermedades Respiratorias, 30(2), 91-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/
S0717-73482014000200005
Rossi, E. (2017). Un futuro por construir: la propuesta del ambientalismo moderno.
Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (4). https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i04.
y2017.001
Rozzi, R. (2001). Ética ambiental latinoamericana: raíces y ramas. Revista Chilena de
Historia Natural, 74(4), 871-887.
Rushforth, A. (2016). All or nothing? Debating the role of evaluative bibliometrics in
the research system. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 230-231. https://doi.org/10.1093/
reseval/rvw004
Sánchez de la Iglesia, E. (2020). Bioética y educación ambiental como compromiso
para la sostenibilidad. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética, (13), 01–10. https://
doi.org/10.14422/rib.i13.y2020.005
Sarmiento, P. (2013). Bioética ambiental y ecopedagogía: una tarea pendiente. Acta
bioethica, 19(1), 29-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2013000100004
Siurana, J. (2010). Los principios de la bioética y el seguimiento de una
bioética intercultural. Veritas, (22), 121-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/
S0718-92732010000100006
Sganzerla, A., Zanella, D., & Graeser, V. (2021). Potter e o equilibrio do ecossistema
como fundamento da moralidade da bioética. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioética,
(17), 01–13. https://doi.org/10.14422/rib.i17.y2021.001
Sotomayor, M. A. (2007). Algunas consideraciones en torno a la bioética y a la
investigación científica biomédica. Revista Chilena de Enfermedades Respiratorias,
23(1), 7-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73482007000100001
Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., & Bateman, I. (2001). Economía ambiental: teoría y práctica.
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Useche, O. (2008). Los nuevos sentidos del desarrollo. Ciudadanías emergentes, paz y
reconstrucción. Universidad Minuto de Dios.
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize co-occurrence data? An analysis
of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 60, 1.635-1.651.
Environmental sustainability: a dialogue between ecological economics and bioethics
203Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Zarta, P. (2018). La sustentabilidad o sostenibilidad: un concepto poderoso para la
humanidad. Tabula Rasa, (28), 409-423. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.
n28.18
203Volumen 35, Año 18, No. 1, Enero-Junio, 2025. CIENCIA E INTERCULTURALIDAD
Zarta, P. (2018). La sustentabilidad o sostenibilidad: un concepto poderoso para la
humanidad. Tabula Rasa, (28), 409-423. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.
n28.18