I agree, and I've answered the same question before much as you have. I don't disagree with the value of equilibrium.

Our bodies are in a sort of equilibrium when healthy, and cancer is an example of emergence of destabilizing phenomena in the system.

Consider the Carboniferous–Permian oxygen maximum; it probably took tens of millions of years for oxygen levels to reach troublesome concentrations for plants, then tens of millions of years to return to "equilibrium."

Our current atmospheric concerns have been produced much faster, right? And I think we hope to improve the situation somewhat faster than ten million years.

My main point is that equilibrium is inherently subjective, bringing along time scales and traits that the observer cares about.

I supposed you could develop a "equilibrium for the most species at once" approach...