Okay, then I’d argue that having 2 kids goes against biology. And that moving to a suburban home and schooling your kids rather than working them in the field is unnatural.

That is after all, how humanity worked for a few Millenia.

If people don't reproduce, people stop existing.

You're arguing for the Amish.

Yes, having kids is (currently) still the main way to propagate our species. It may not be so in the future and/or when lifespans increase many times it may make more sense to make much fewer kids.

Even today, with a global fertility rate of 2.5 children per woman and a population of over 7 billion people I don't think there's any need to worry about biological mandates. On the contrary, I think that in developed countries where each human being consumes much more (and consequently generates more waste) than other countries the birth rate should be heavily lowered. Of course, our economy/society may not be engineered for that but better start doing it sooner than later.

Having access to automobiles, vaccination, running water, and anti-biotics goes against biology.

On the other hand, getting eaten by a tiger, living with ringworms, having your teeth fall out before middle age, or having 50/50 odds of dying by the age of 4 is perfectly natural, does not go against biology.

I don't think biology is a great litmus test for how we want to structure society.

Aside from automobiles, the other examples you have are things humans have done to further the survival of the species. More advanced versions of seeking food and shelter essentially.

Which is a natural expectation of the species...

What if the survival of the species requires us to take steps to, over generations, reduce our population to ~1 billion?