Why are the laws of nature left wing and liberal?

Why are the laws of nature left wing and liberal?

they aren't they are actually super conservative.

Depend where you look

>British naturalists

>applying terms invented in the French Revolutions to something that has been going on for 4.5 billion years

but why then are most scientists and engineers universally liberal?

Nothing in nature is liberal.
Even highly social creatures like ants and bees are NatSoc if anything.

Because humans are highly illogical creatures who put morals before progress and efficiency.

One might argue that this allowed us to evolve to what we are but who knows.

Nature is so complex that you can always find an example for your personal views. Social darwinism was not very liberal and had an anti-social interpretation of nature.

They only care about their career and see themselves as part of the elite. The same elite, which doesn't care for the rest of the people and transforms the universities into marxist reeducation camps.

Homosexuality is natural for some animals in cases where non breeding males are expected to care for the children of the alpha when females aren't available (due to pregnancy, or death/injury). There are other reasons why it has been passed on as well. It makes perfect sense, for social animals the structure of the entire population itself is subject to evolution.

The problems are:
- leftists try to use this argument to say that trannies and gendersnowflakes are natural
- people commonly mistake human-like behavior in animals for having the same meaning as when humans do it
- just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's good. By leftist logic, rape is good because beta monkeys try to rape breeding females and nut before the alpha to finds out and kills them

They aren't.

The vast majority animal species operate under a system of traditional gender roles and tribalism.

laws of nature are facist af

The laws of nature are just laws without any ideological drive behind it. These are laws that, even if they are unfair or benefit a minority of creatures or concepts, will remain in place.
One could argue the laws of nature are traditionalist.

Classical liberal or "current year" liberal?

Classicals prefer removal of government interference, to let humans do what they will, which is massively beneficial for science, as there are few restrictions on funding and what can be researched.
Current year liberals advocate for more government control, and they've been encroaching on what subjects may be examined yes or no. It will not surprise me that they'll try some sort of retarded coup to get race in anthropology or medicine banned entirely.

When you ask a scientist whether he's liberal, he'll think of classical liberalism, because that's in a scientist's interest.

The only law of nature is "Survival of the fittest" .

How is that even closely liberal, you dumb fuck?

>liberals
>leftists
Yeah nah

>Survive or die
>liberal
Ummm

I read some interesting article about how a wolf pack had a female take the role of the alpha, I think by killing him.

At first, nothing really changed. However, over time the alpha female became extremely cruel. She attacked and tortured other wolves for no reason, killed their offspring for no reason, and she constantly bullied the pack's omega. She started hoarding food for herself causing other wolves to become weak and desperate. Eventually the omega challenged her, then the rest of the pack ganged up and killed her. The pack then operated better without a traditional social structure, and eventually one of the males began to assert itself as alpha and everything returned to normal.

Not an argument.

An appeal to nature can be a fallacy. The most common example is non-monogamy. They believe that since animals don't do practice it we shouldn't practice it. But if you ok at the data, heterosexual, monogamous couples are best for children. They also use the nature fallacy for homosexuality. Necrophilia, incest, and cannibalism all occur in nature. It doesn't mean we should practice them.

When did you last see a deer with antlers claim it's a doe and that its herd needs to be culturally enriched by coyotes?

Cannibalism is also natural for nearly every animal species.

why is anyone replying to this stupid fucking question? it doesn't even make sense

fucking sage

liberals aren't leftists because they support capitalism and identity politics (trannies and whatnot)