You describe the system as it currently stands, however there are far more possibilities to be selected as we reach more abundance.
I don't agree that you can exemplify every human aspect in a natural macrosystem.
Try me. 
All systems follow the same structural rules. Everything, quite literally, is a system. People opine about the awesomeness and generalizability of physics. If they'd only replace "physics" with "systems," they'd be right.
Something you should be aware of is agent-based modeling.
I am aware of this evolutionary warfare.
Violence/non-violence are on two sides of the spectrum, what I was trying to portray in the plant example was bringing violence as close to 0 in relation to itself.
As close to 0 as possible isn't 0. 
Violence follows the rules of source sink dynamics. Nonlinear/indirect violence must build up in a sink before it is expressed all at once. Oaks casually build up dead fuelwood in the forest understory until, all at once in conjunction with an external catalyst, it triggers a wildfire and destroys the oak's competition.
It is a rather anarchist postulate, I don't see any healthier example of society than a self governing and self organising one.
The greatest example of coercion will most likely be when humans reach the limit of population on earth.
Coercion is intrinsic to a deterministic universe (which includes soft determinism/compatibilism). There's this really cool concept related to the Heisenberg Principle called Reciprocal Causality. Every choice made by an agent restricts the potential choices that agent can make in the future. If you buy a cherry pie and eat it all today, you cannot eat it tomorrow. Neither can anyone else. If you're alive and not dismembered, standing in Ghana, you can't be in Yugoslavia at the same time. Nonaggression and aggression both impact the self and others according to this general principle.
I consider very high density as a natural enviroment to spark a conflict for creating more space for yourself at the expense of the rest.
In a less dense societies individual could be given enough freedom to allow himself a standard of needs. By dense i not only mean area, it can be any basic commodity.
In systems terms, this is addressed by entropy. Example: Violence is higher in cities and lower in rural areas. Concentrated violence is a means to attempt to homogenize violence throughout society through the migration of individuals. People avoid pain to the best of their ability like it's the plague. However, entropy has an opposite. The total amount of violent expression remains stable.
Just like gold. It exists in very concentrated areas. Mining it, moving it, and transforming it into jewelry doesn't change the total amount of gold that exists.
My example of restricting freedom to allow freedom shows a difference between the value you place on individual freedom. You either value a few individuals with unlimited freedom or a larger group of beings that limit themselves.
Reciprocal causality should have addressed this, but I'll clarify if needed. All individuals have equal agency potential, though not all individuals recognize their potential. An example of the latter is adherence to social norms, mores, and taboos.
Quite right, in my previous post i was giving examples of the unachievable for now end of spectrum. This is similar to how you cannot achieve perfect lightness without expending unlimited energy etc.
Altruism/Anarchism or any non-systemic movement depends on spreading the awarness of the problem and slowly building up the awarness of the individuals.
The awareness sort of spreads itself, actually.
One of the great things about it is that it relies on free will and choice between policies rather than on violent form of vanguardism and overthrowing.
Unless or until they choose violence. 
In its approach to creating the ideas it relies on values that stay true to itself.
I do not find it unachievable to create a majority of individuals aware of the systemic choice before them and selecting the limit-coercion option.
You assume that there would have to be 100% of like-minded individuals in a society to maintain it.
I do not assume that this society would rely solely on self-controlling methods.
The idea of self organising begins with an individual that has a certain range of freedoms. This individual has his private space, this is where he can act as long as his actions relate only to himself and to his private space.
There is also a public space, an individual leaves his private space and agrees on the rules of the majority. He can interact with other willing individuals as long as he does not violate their private space.
If there would be a person that doesn't respect idea of basic freedom, there would be also aware individuals that act in order to prevent violation of this privacy. Simply they organise themselves and limit actions of the agressive to the point where he can only act in his private space. If this individual violates the will of the majority he is unable to act in a public space. But it doesn't restrict general privacy given everyone.
This shows how there can be agression used to control over-agression.
Good. Now, apply reciprocal causality to the previous idea of a choice hierarchy wherein things are exchanged for different things between individuals according to the different and ever-changing agent-based priorities of each individual using this example in the spoiler. The spoiler example uses just one resource, but we must now consider multiple resources simultaneously. All individuals must use resources. Or they die. Given every individual's capacity for violence, violence can be staved off in one individual through substitution of one resource with another. But that substitution reduces the availability of that resource to other individuals. Choice is influenced by both internal desire and intrinsic ability (product of a linear mechanism), and availability (product of a nonlinear mechanism). Even with a supermajority of altruists, the choices of those not in that supermajority will reverberate through the entire system (this is actually what prevents even a majority from forming). Not all resources are equal.
Not even a supermajority of altruists can prevent systemic violence. Pure altruism ironically depends on genocide, whether traditional genocide or genocide through resource-domineering.
Also, following the rules of the majority does not equate to agreeing to the rules of the majority.
So there are two aspects to be considered:
1. Use of agression to create freedom, strife for dominance is a general trend.
Free exist in non-agression and react with agression to maintain freedom.
Desired increase in freedom is achieved through agression.
This model views free as having roots connected to every subject aspect of enviroment that provide great freedom to a small amount of trees.
2.Use of non-agression to create freedom, strife for non-dominance is general.
Not-free exist in non-agression and react with agression to maintain freedom.
Desired increase in freedom is achieved through non-agression.
This model shows free as having roots connect to independent aspects of enviroment. Limited freedom is provided to a larger number of plants.
The last example should have addressed this stuff. Remember direct (linear) vs indirect (nonlinear).
Pain is unimportant in this discussion. I dont know why I even started to consider this as an aspect in the first place
.
But, it does still apply in the sense of equal and opposite forces. Violence vs "nonviolence" = direct and indirect in the same way that pain and pleasure are both nerve impulses that utilize the same structure.
Certain parts of enviroment are shared. Non-living matter is considered inferior to life. Life takes posession of matter as from the point of view of matter there is no value in this action. Also from the point of view of life there is value in matter as a requirement for life. Life is viewed as matter and beyond, matter actively interacting with matter.
And that sharing is exactly what perpetuates violence. 
I have no idea why "nonliving" matter would be considered inferior to life, considering that life is composed of it. They need each other. How can there be no value in it when survival and existence depends on it? What would matter do without life (remember, entropy has an opposite)? Consider "life" to be ubiquitous throughout the universe and exist along a sentience gradient that extends from the most elementary subatomic particle through humanity. Viruses make a nice center point.
As for animals, they may not care they do not control their enviroment in relation to themselves.
As for humans, they indeed can and should care how many resources and how much of the enviroment is preserved to sustain growth.
The sentience/perception gradient applies here too. Objective reality exists, but we can only perceive a portion of it. That portion increases along the gradient, but it never reaches the point of omniscience. Humans are more aware, but we still routinely destroy and continue to do so until we reach the point where the currently fashionable method of destruction threatens our continued existence. And then we change our method and destroy in a slightly different manner.
Also you imply there is a constant chain of agression. However every agressive action allows for a period of non-agression, growth.
In your model you place no consideration for non-agression, as if there was simply agressive behaviour and survival. In fact non-agression is very similar to the idea of survival.
This actually is addressed in the NetLogo model. The currency in the model is invisible. Altruists survive by sharing it, aggressors survive by stealing it. An aggressor stealing from an aggressor allows an altruist to share. The problem is who they share with. If they're truly altruistic, they'll share with aggressors, causing their own demise. If they share only with other altruists, they're being indirectly aggressive through resource exclusion.
It proves to be a very interesting exchange, I think it comes down to the perception of limits in enviroment and yourself.
Indeed. Wait until you apply Perceptual Control Theory.
We can in fact see how achieving non-agression is a desired trend as growth and increase in complexity is a desired aspect of life.
Desired because is a result of action rather than means.
I am interested in how you view this idea of growth as non-agression.
It's only desired because it is also aggression.
).
.
