Let's try this another way. Even though we apparently are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum here I'm going to go into this with an open mind and assume at the end of this short conversation I'm going to come out the other end learning something new. I'll lay out what I'm thinking here, and please explain to me where I've misunderstood and please clarify so we can get to the root of what you're talking about.

First, I can't see how this is a strawman. Logically, in academia, perhaps you could argue this is a strawman because you technically didn't say the word "prevent", but in the "real world" I can't see how 50% of the entire world's population (or whatever percentage we're talking about here) would just agree with your hypothesis and say: "You know what, he's probably right. We, the poor people of the world are a burden on society and shouldn't be having children of our own. From this day forward we vow not to have children because we think this guy may be right, that it would truly end human suffering when it's all said and done". No. The only way this experiment would proceed is through a large-scale state-sponsored effort to prevent poor people from having children. Against their will. And not only this, but I'm almost positive that if this large-scale effort proceeded it would more than likely erupt into a civil (world?) war. Far from the original goal to "eliminate human suffering".

Second, I can't see how this is a personal attack. That is unless you do believe a person's self worth is measured by the size of their bank account. And if you do believe a person's self-worth is measured by the size of their bank account, it's no more a personal attack than the attack you've made on poor people by insinuating that they are the root cause of human suffering on this planet, simply because they have the audacity to have children of their own.