I have thought this for years. It’s like they don’t realize they are studying a living system, and even worse one that is actively trying to invalidate their models.
I think the bigger issue is that people are not as rational, nor as consistent, as the models treat them. The fundamental premise of a lot of economic theory is that people have consistent, ranked, preferences, and that people work to maximize their preferences. Most people don’t fit that.
My sister is a political science professor, and she says this is an open secret in political science. The assumption is that people have consistent preferences (e.g. someone who is pro gun control is always pro gun control), but research has shown people are fickle, and will give different answers at different times.
If you want to get to base levels, look at metabolism, energy inputs, conversion efficiencies, productive activity, and immunity / defence / risk dynamics.
Economic analysis arose out of cost accounting in which those inputs were specifically discounted, under-priced, and/or externalised.
I think economists are well aware of the nature of the beast they're studying.
And even if doing the task is daunting, and the landscape changing as it's described, it's still worth it.
Especially if anyone finds fixed points which do have the property that describing them doesn't invalidate them.