Are you making the argument that someone in 3000BC, who couldn't even read or communicate further than voice could carry, didn't take enough action on the global warming problem that wouldn't exist for another ~4950 years? We're trying to solve a problem that has become apparent in the last ~50 years, it's a bit weird to mention a trend that long predated the existence of the problem and use that as argument for why we can't solve the problem without more pollution. I guess it's a bit like someone in 1800 saying that ever-more horses were involved in becoming more prosperous and therefore we can't have prosperity without at least two horses per person.

I am not saying we won't need more energy ever again, but long-term we can find solutions for that, and short-term (as a stopgap solution) we already know that nuclear power can deliver that power without the global warming. It has other problems, but not ones that threaten our lives as much as global warming does. Of course, in the long run we'll need other forms of energy to take over completely, but even in the short term we can (as in, physical ability, not political will) make this work without reducing our energy needs.

I don't believe there's a causal relation between more pollution and more prosperity.