We may be able to support our current population without pesticides (I don't know, I'm not really that immersed in the economics of it), but not without backsliding on the advances we've made against global poverty.
I think this is too pessimistic. If governments would stop messing around with subsidizing certain crops at the expense of others (not to mention so many third world governments cashing in on aid without any of it even getting to their people at all), food prices could be considerably cheaper than they are, even with pesticide-free farming methods. The main reasons for poverty today are political, not technical.
"We don't need known, existing solution X if we solve the incredibly complex and old-as-time problem Y" isn't really a compelling argument. Like, I oppose food subsidies as much as anyone, but 1) I'm not under any illusion that they're going away, and 2) I'm not sure how eliminating them would change the underlying utility that pesticides have.
> I'm not under any illusion that they're going away
They never will if everyone has that attitude. I agree they aren't going to be made to go away instantly; but I don't think they're an "old-as-time problem" either.
> I'm not sure how eliminating them would change the underlying utility that pesticides have.
Eliminating food subsidies would improve things whether pesticides are used or not. They're orthogonal issues.
Of course, a pesticide-free market could exist alongside the status quo. The question is how much more expensive it would be. Mounting revelations like TFA are what drive demand for that.
However, I think consumer confusion is the main challenge for such a market. How many people already think buying organic = no pesticides? Or they see your pesticide-free marketing and think "my bases are already covered: I shop at Trader Joe's."