Whilst the OP was obviously just trying to be controversial and doesn't have much of a grasp of the economics behind it, the point I believe he is bringing up is about demographics and the birth rate.
There is a lot of evidence to show that an environment of low fertility is more advantageous to economic growth, than high fertility. Where you have societies with a lower birthrate you get slower population growth. If you think about the economy having a certain amount of capital and a certain number of workers, then as the economy accumulates capital (through investment, which is influenced by the saving rate) then it increases the amount of capital per worker - this is capital deepening. But as the number of workers increases, then in order to maintain the same level of capital per worker as before, it needs more capital to give to the new workers - this is capital widening. When you have fast population growth, you have more capital widening going on, and not so much capital deepening. When you have slow population growth you have more capital deepening, so each worker becomes more productive, and output per worker increases (GDP per capita increases). Also when you have slower population growth, you get more investment (in terms of education) per child.
So why do some economies have high population growth and others low population growth? Although it seems paradoxical, the biggest link is with disease and the mortality rate. In countries where there are high levels of mortality particularly child mortality, because of disease/starvation then you get higher population growth because households are naturally risk averse and so overcompensate in terms of fertility. Especially in agricultural societies, where people need children in practical terms because they carry out farming work and support the work of the adults, they have more children because they are factoring in the risk factor that one or two of their children will die. I know there are also religious/cultural elements, but if you look at European societies they had high birth rates before advances in disease control like immunisation started to get on top of smallpox and the other diseases that used to be responsible for high child mortality. As disease control improved the birth rate and population growth slowed.
If you look at why tropical countries are poor this is one of the biggest issues - the presence of malaria. In some of the tropical countries which are in island or coastal environments, eg Hong Kong, Singapore, Mauritius and Taiwan, they have had more success in eliminating malaria because you can drain swamps, spray DDT etc and you haven't got mosquitos flying in from neighbouring countries to bring it back, but you can't do this in sub Saharan Africa where a lot of the countries are landlocked so they just have mosquitoes all over the place ready to bring it back in, the ecology is a lot more supportive of malaria. The four countries I mentioned before brought their birth rates down after they got on top of disease which has enabled them to grow their economies and move towards economies based on production and service sectors, rather than just agricultural economies.
The most useful form of support for the developing world IMO is in research into tropical disease and disease control. Once you get on top of disease it becomes far easier for an economy to develop because the rate of population growth drops.