Objectives:
The change linked to eco-technology, if aggressive, unrestrained, accelerated, can in fact become hostile to life; but guided and controlled, it can turn into a positive hero. Therefore, the conditio sine qua non for this to happen is that man does not enter the most complex revolution in his history. On the contrary, he must be able to take conscious control of his future, perhaps fearlessly relying on the words of that straightforward philosophical ethos.

Material and methods:
The techno-sciences must not be an end, but must remain a tool in the hands of man on an exclusive condition of good towards the individual, the human community and the whole environment. And I think it is important to focus on this new and rapidly expanding field of ecology.

Results:
It is necessary to bring out a vision of human life that places efficiency at the service of gratuitousness. The benefit of health will be the building of a 'friendly environment', in which the right to simple equality of species will be replaced by the duty to respect the biodiversity of others.

Conclusions:
In short, the debate between bioethics and ecology is still open, and the dispute between anthropocentrists and ecocentrists is also open, as is the dispute between those calling for more freedom and those demanding more protection. Society wants to have free access to the opportunities offered by biotechnology and biomedicine, but with information and discernment, but it also wants to live in an ecologically healthy area, even in the presence of economic activities with a strong environmental impact.