> Also, as a counterexample, society whatever it may be cares about motherhood, that doesn’t mean it pays money to mothers… On the contrary, it's an example, n

> Also, as a counterexample, society whatever it may be cares about motherhood, that doesn’t mean it pays money to mothers… On the contrary, it's an example, not a counterexample. The fact that the US, almost alone in the world, doesn't have mandatory paid parental leave, absolutely says something about how much the American society cares about parenthood. Of course, you don't have to pay people to make future taxpayers if they're doing it for free – and indeed spending a lot of money raising said future taxpayers, so on an individual level Americans certainly seem to care about children. Of course there are also other ways than money to manipulate people into having more kids, such as poor sex education and making it socially frowned upon or even illegal to use contraception or have an abortion. In any case, having children is obviously an extreme edge case given that there's a couple billion years worth of genetic programming making us want to have them, or at the very least making us want to partake in the activity that's supposed to result in children. The article can be aptly summarized as: "Talk is cheap, show me the money". An individual or a society can virtue signal however much they like, but to find out what they really care about, take a look at where the money is going.