I want a red car, four slice toaster, a number of books, and a maple tree in the front yard. These would most likely be categorized as personal preferences. I want food, water, shelter, and companionship. These would most likely be categorized as "natural" human preferences. But are they? What distinguishes personal preferences from natural/instinctual ones?

I say this because I think the lines are often misdrawn for cases like procreation. Hunger seems to be more on the natural/instinctual side of the spectrum. Whether to read this or that book seems to be on the personal side of the spectrum. Procreation is often put in the natural/instinctual side of the spectrum, but I argue that it should really be on the personal side.

First off, we'd have to distinguish what makes a preference natural. One might argue three ways here:

1) A preference is natural if without it, one is in physical discomfort that eventually leads to death. Hunger, temperature regulation, and thirst would fall into this category. Companionship would not or at least, the link of lack of relationships to death would be much farther removed than the first three.

2) A preference is natural if it brings some sort of physical pleasure that is amenable through what the bodies can produce without "adding" something man-made to it. So sexual pleasure, good tasting food, a warm bath, might bring some sort of chemically-induced good feelings. One can refine this further and say man-made things can count too (like drugs) because it works on pathways that are "natural". Thus opioids work on naturally working pleasure-centers (or pain-blocking centers).

3) A preference is natural if without it, the function of the species is nullified. Thus for example, humans operate using language and social cues. Without being in fully functioning social relationships, the human species would cease to function how the human species operates. In effect, its fundamental nature would change or go extinct. The desire to produce more humans, some might say, might fall into this category, as without it, the functioning of society (and human society specifically) disappears. Thus, psychological and social functions like companionship, achievement, curiosity, and other "higher" social/psychological motivations may fall into this as well.

I believe that 1 is the strongest candidate for what "counts" as natural. The consequences are most apparent as not following the dictates of the preference lead to literal death and catastrophic discomfort and pain.

I believe that 2 is not as strong. The consequences lead to a less stark consequence. Not following certain physical pleasures. However, it is stronger than 3 as a candidate for what is "natural" as the physical pleasures that arise from it cannot really be altered without substantial work. Physical pleasure is physical pleasure, left to itself, with very few exceptions.

I believe that 3 is the weakest. It is very easy to manipulate 3 from a "natural" preference to a socialized norm. What we "think" as social necessities might be simply social conditioning. We "want" this or that preference because humans have a social "need" for it gets very blurry and is rife with personal preferences (shaped from social cues) that masquerade as natural ones. I don't even think this category should be considered as it is too fraught with these types of errors.

Then there are things that don't fall under "natural" preferences at all. These are personal ones. What clothes to where, what kind of bread to get, etc. I think, contrary to what most people tend to believe, procreation falls under personal preference. People conflate several things including physical pleasure, and the centrality of procreation to evolutionary theory, for why procreation is natural. However, that is all it is, a conflation. Physical pleasure indeed may be "natural" (as per category 2), but the consequence (procreation) is not. There are a huge amount of social, psychological, and personal decisions around procreation that are not simply physical pleasure. Procreation certainly doesn't fall under 1 (without it an individual will die a discomforting and tortuous death). Rather, people put it under the vague 3 category of some necessary social functioning. As I tried to argue earlier, 3 is too vague and rife with personal preferences masquerading as "natural" to count as even its own category.

So what is left? What is left is procreation is simply a personal preference like any other personal preference. I want coffee, eggs, and to read the newspaper. I want this cereal and not that one. The preference to procreate is simply one other personal preference, albeit one that impacts a person's life significantly. It still does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2 which may indeed count as natural (though even 2 can be argued against). Being that it does not meet the criteria of 1 and 2, it is thus a personal preference.