> But DNA extraction doesn't require deep knowledge about the species.
The act of extraction doesn't, but interpretation of the results does. So to does actually knowing where to get the specimens in the first place. So to does building up experience knowing where to look, how to collect, building up a feeling for the diversity and variation in the group you study. Without these tools in hand all the images, sequences, and assays etc. in the world will a) cost you way more than anyone wants to pay and b) will have you floundering around in a giant pool of dirt-common species that are well known rather than pulling that series of uncommon and ultra-rare specimens and making a contribution that really extends our knowledge. It takes years to know where to focus precious time, this isn't peculiar to taxonomy.
Take the comment a little more gently. You didn't really address that by just saying "many of which require internal dissection, or molecular methods". And even with this followup, it's not fully addressed. Dissection takes an expert, sure. But DNA extraction doesn't require deep knowledge about the species. And preservation requires skills but not taxonomy skills. Does SEM imaging for this purpose usually require species expertise?
I'm not saying you're wrong overall here, I'm just saying there are pretty obvious points where the average person won't know the answer or which of these skills end up mattering the most.
> It's a wonderful aspiration to live in a society where anyone will have the free time to "level-up" to a taxonomists level of experience
I don't think that's what they were suggesting.