Hard to get the gist of the entire conversation above without in depth reading, but the idea that the majority of humans aren't genetically inclined to want kids is untenable to me.
The simple proof is that those who don't want kids fall out of the gene pool. Only those who have (and presumably want) kids, reproduce, meaning subsequent generations will continue wanting kids. Even if we normalize for social norms, this is only going to weed out the people who didn't really want kids, leading to a population that more ubiquitously wants kids.
If that were true, then wouldn't we expect the proportion of humans who do not want to have offspring to be basically nonexistent at this point? The effect you suggest is exponential, in that each generation would be another round of weeding out those without the "gene" for wanting children. Yet, we see no evidence that today's population of humans is any more pro-reproduction than any past population. If anything, the acceptance of childlessness is at an all-time high at this point in history, which would be unlikely if every generation was subjected to a process of winnowing out those who are reluctant to be parents. Your argument is actually a good reason to believe that there is actually no genetic compulsion for kids, just for things that are sometimes associated with kids (like sex), and qualities that are regarded positively in others as a proxy (like cuteness or vulnerability). It's arguable that these traits are what our genes program us to pursue, and culture fills in the rest of the sentence. Otherwise, there would be no way to explain people who enjoy cute babies but don't want one of their own, or love sex but are staunchly antinatalist; their very existence means they had a long line of ancestors, which doesn't really fit with the stringent selection pressure mechanism you are proposing.
Here's some homework for you: try to pick apart your own post. Going to go enjoy my weekend.
Also: just place 'want' with 'have'.. same effect.
- - - Updated - - -
And it's not just not having no kids at all, it's also not having more kids. If we were 'genetically progammed' no one would use family planning, and its use is widely prevalent where it and information about it are freely available. This probably highlights the cultural and situational aspects of the issue, and we all understand how culture and attitudes can change with circumstances even when genes don't. Because, of course, nowadays it's understood that we are not progammed by our genes when it comes to this behaviour.
There is of course competing factors. It can be true at the same time that:
- someone wants kids
- someone doesn't want unlimited kids