"Homeostasis means dynamical systems have fixed points in state space" is something that's been taught in american highschool biology since at least the mid-90s. (though they usually take more words to say the "fixed points ..." bit)
Do you not think things which are balanced should remain so unless acted upon by an outside force?
Since "nature" as a concept tends to include everything except human activity, the implication of "balance of nature" is that it will remain in stasis unless acted upon by humans, which, as the article has pointed out, is not accurate.
The net effect is what is important. A complex, interconnected and ever-changing system like nature cannot be evaluated so easily. You can evaluate the 'state' at a particular 'point in time', but there is no way to know if the equilibrium has been disturbed.
tops spin, and are balanced.
a sine wave is constantly changing and is balanced.
dynamic systems whose overall behavior is constant
I interpreted the article as advocating for a more hands-on approach to conservation. There is a feeling among many people that if we just leave nature alone and don't create global warming, it will be great. But that is not true.
Many people make the argument "we need to stop fucking up nature so that our kids can experience it". But the point of the article is that sometimes "not fucking up" is not enough.
Which, of course, is true.
So strange we don't think of ourselves as being part of what created us and would die without.
Humans behavior is not an external force. When we destroy nature that is nature destroying nature, as it always has.
Why does the land contend with the sea?
Is there an avenging power in nature?
Not one force, but two?