I disagree to an extent. Like antibiotics, glyphosate is frequently misused, overused, and abused. But also like antibiotics, glyphosate can improve our lot in life but only through restraint and prudent use. I believe there do exist situations in which a product containing glyphosate should be used. I would prefer it be Rodeo or Aquamaster after all other more environmentally friendly options have been exhausted. Volunteers simply aren't jumping out of the woodwork standing in line to commit to volunteering endless hours under land stewards to mechanically control invasive species in natural areas and one thing is for sure, delaying control of invasive species because of a lack of manpower has major consequences. "Like an out-of-control wildfire, the cost of fighting invasive species increases each year. Among those who work with invasive species, the consensus is that for every year control is delayed, the costs of control increase two- to three-fold."
Comparing a natural resource manager or conservationist with formal education and/or experience as pertains to our natural world to the average homeowner is akin to comparing apples to oranges. We mustn't fault the natural resource manager for not being a good homeowner and conversely we mustn't fault the land owner for not being a good resource manager but... we can all learn from one another. Education is paramount.
If you find a natural resource manager grabbing their "fireant-be-gone" without assessing the environmental impacts and weighing the pros and cons, it's time for that individual to find a new job. The goal of the NRM and conservationist is to protect the environment through sound decision making. Sometimes, the best that can be hoped for is that we come out ahead when the score is tallied.
There's no greater proof that monocultures are "bad" than the fact that the natural world which supports all life forms selects diversity over monocultures. Organic farming successfully avoids the use of pesticides by not planting crops in monocultures - no doubt an idea copied from nature. We use herbicides in our natural areas to maintain or restore those systems back to their previously un-infested state, so that we won't have to apply billions of gallons of pesticides every year. Healthy functioning ecosystems are the best "pesticide" there is.
Hundreds and thousands of years of evolution could and will create new systems from our currently invaded ones if left unmanaged, however, there are very real threats to the environment and humans happening right now and in the meantime. For instance, fire is a huge problem out west and in many parts of the world because invasives have altered fire regimes or in some cases have added fire when there was none previously. These invasive plants have altered fuel type and load, burn frequency and intensity among many other factors. Not only does that change in fire regime have serious consequences to those ecosystems and our planet overall, but to the health and economy of those communities and states that live in and depend on those functioning systems and all the resources they provide: food, clean water and air, erosion control, flood prevention and on and on.
It's easy to say chemicals are bad but we must think of what happens when entire ecosystems are left to invasion. Who will don a shovel and help me hand dig 40,000 acres of Knapweed? Please know NRMs and conservationists don't enjoy exposing themselves to chemicals or dealing with public outcries. Chemicals are hopefully the last resort after everything else has failed.
I believe with all my heart that we are not really disagreeing with each other as much as what would appear to the casual reader. I doubt anyone here is not sincerely concerned about changes taking place that have modified habitats of native flora and fauna that will negatively impact human health. I know I won't be around to see if anything I am doing will have made a difference 100 years from now but my epitaph will be able to read that I tried.