In the context of economics, maybe we should say "part of our habitat" instead of "basic necessities". This is the relationship between us and food.

To be clearer, this showerthought perhaps needs to be fleshed out a bit. But I think I get your point.

Here's the controversial crux IMO. Whatever economists may think, economics is not a science. It's an art posing as a science. That's because science transcends humanity, whereas economics is a product of the human imagination.

To the extent that economics can be considered a science, it is a wholly dependent subset of ecology.