[silverpepsi]

Firstly, what I said can be true in one scope of reference and what you say in another. It's not mutually exclusive.

I feel your perspective is more about lots of the world after the rise of nation states and dense civilization.

For me I'm actually thinking back to the Pirahãs tribe from Daniel Everett's book as how we realistically lived as tribes. Conflict might arise, but a group might split off and go live in an entirely different patch of forest permanently, at which point the conflict is done without fuss. Things can be much less pleasant with permanent settlements and all land being owned by someone else.

A couple, man and woman, possibly with children, might also do something like this and just reject the benefits of being part of a larger community as loners.

Not all conflict is existential, we all choose to live facing a certain amount but also have our limits. Kids have way less flexibility to make the call and it is the cause of much misery