During the classical period of economic thought, roughly spanning the late 18th and 19th centuries, the relationship between ecology and economics was approached with a rudimentary awareness of natural limits, but it was largely framed in terms of production, land use, and resource availability. Classical economists, while primarily concerned with wealth creation, labor, and market dynamics, did exhibit varying degrees of engagement with ecological concerns, albeit in ways that were intertwined with social and cultural norms of their time. Their perspectives laid the groundwork for what would later develop into environmental economics and sustainability-oriented thinking within the socio-cultural system. Adam Smith, often regarded as the father of modern economics, approached economic activity through the lens of human behavior, labor specialization, and market interactions. While Smith’s analysis in *The Wealth of Nations* focused primarily on production and the efficiency of markets, he implicitly acknowledged natural limits through his discussion of land and agriculture. He recognized that land was a finite resource whose productivity could constrain economic growth. In his treatment of rent, Smith highlighted that the fertility of the land determined its economic value, thus linking natural ecological features with economic outcomes. This understanding, though limited, suggested that economic systems could not be entirely abstracted from the natural environment, and that the exploitation of resources was inherently tied to the productivity and characteristics of ecological systems. Smith’s observations were also socially mediated, as the agrarian economy of his time dictated that the management of land, labor, and natural resources was embedded in broader cultural practices and hierarchical social structures. Following Smith, David Ricardo further developed the classical understanding of the relationship between ecology and economics through his theory of rent. Ricardo explicitly emphasized the diminishing returns of agricultural land, demonstrating a clearer recognition of ecological constraints. His argument rested on the principle that as population and demand grew, less fertile land would be brought into cultivation, increasing the economic rent