Abel progress and mimetic rivalry spread through the same social channels — but by different mechanisms. Understanding the difference is the key to seeding positive contagion at scale.
Spreads through a single exposure. Viruses, rumours, fear, and are simple contagions — they need only one contact to transmit. This is why negative contagion spreads faster and farther than positive contagion.
Requires multiple reinforcing contacts from structurally diverse sources. Behaviour change, innovation adoption, and are complex contagions — they need social reinforcement, not just exposure. This is the structural reason is harder to spread than .
"Structural diversity — exposure from multiple distinct social circles — dramatically increases adoption. A person exposed to an idea from five different social circles is far more likely to adopt it than one exposed five times from the same circle."
Ugander et al. (2012, PNAS, cited 879 times) — "Structural Diversity in Social Contagion"
The seeding source must be genuinely independent of both sides of the conflict. When all innovators are embedded in the conflict system, the Abel interrupt cannot be seeded. Burt (1987, AJS, cited 3,940 times) confirms: structural equivalence — occupying similar positions across different networks — drives innovation adoption. Cohesion alone is insufficient.
An Abel seed planted from within the conflict system will be absorbed by the conflict system. Structural independence is not optional — it is the necessary condition for Abel contagion.
Abel progress requires dense, overlapping social clusters — not viral bridges. Centola (2010, Science, cited 2,800+ times) demonstrated that clustered networks spread complex behaviours more effectively than random networks. The Cold War space race worked because it created dense institutional clusters (NASA, ESA, universities, industry) around a shared outward goal.
Spreading Abel progress through social media (sparse, random network) is structurally ineffective. Dense institutional clusters — research centres, formation communities, professional networks — are the correct substrate.
Abel contagion requires a goal that redirects competitive energy outward — toward expansion, new capacity, 'new land' — rather than inward toward competition and defence. Horsevad et al. (2022, Nature Communications, cited 56 times) confirms: there is a threshold transition between simple and complex contagion. Below the threshold, simple contagion (mimetic rivalry) dominates. Above it, complex contagion (Abel progress) can spread.
The outward direction must be compelling enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the conflict system. The space race succeeded because the cosmos was a more compelling goal than destroying the other side.
Johan's observation — that wise, well-informed leaders in the Cold War consciously chose to redirect competitive energy outward toward the cosmos rather than into kinetic conflict — is confirmed by independent academic evidence.
"We choose to go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
Explicitly outward-directed. The goal was not to defeat the USSR but to expand human capacity. The competitive energy was redirected, not eliminated.
Kennedy, Rice University, September 12, 1962
"The space programme generated civilian technology spillovers that transformed the Soviet economy."
Khrushchev's parallel: Sputnik → satellite communications, weather forecasting, materials science. Both superpowers independently seeded the same Abel interrupt.
Kantor & Whalley (2025, AER, cited 107 times)
"Space sector activity in the first part of the space race had a positive impact on long-run economic growth."
Corrado et al. (2025, SSRN) confirm the Abel interrupt produced positive-sum spillovers — new capacity without destroying existing capacity.
Corrado, Grassi & Paolillo (2025, SSRN)
"During the Space Race, geopolitical rivalry imposed clear constraints and generated positive-sum spillovers for civilian life."
Gschwend (2025, SSRN) names Abel the mathematician explicitly in the context of positive-sum innovation from strategic competition.
Gschwend (2025, SSRN) — 'The Invisible Hand of Science'
"In the past, real leaps were made by individuals who opened doors for new perspective, 'new lands'. To my disappointment, all current innovators work in concert on one or the other side of the conflict."
Johan, March 2026 — Part LV observation
This observation is confirmed by current evidence. As of March 2026, every major MI innovator has lost structural independence. The necessary condition for Abel contagion — a structurally independent seeding source — does not currently exist at scale in the MI innovation ecosystem.
| Innovator / Company | Alignment Status (March 2026) | Abel/Cain |
|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | Signed Department of War contract, March 2, 2026. Previously banned military use. | Cain |
| Google DeepMind | Revised AI principles to allow weapons development, February 2025. | Cain |
| Anthropic | Under Pentagon ultimatum (all lawful use). Sued the Pentagon to maintain limits. | Contested |
| Microsoft | Primary enabler of OpenAI's military contracts via Azure. Sides with Anthropic in lawsuit. | Mixed |
| Meta / LLaMA | Open-source models used by both US and Chinese military applications. | Cain (indirect) |
| Palantir | CEO Alex Karp: 'Palantir exists to serve Western military dominance.' | Cain |
| SpaceX / xAI | Musk embedded in US government via DOGE; xAI has defense applications. | Cain |
| NVIDIA | Chips are the primary enabler of both US and Chinese military AI. | Cain (infrastructure) |
Einstein (stateless refugee, anti-nationalist), Turing (outside military command structure), Von Neumann (theoretical contributions across both sides), Feynman (maintained structural independence even at Los Alamos) — all occupied structurally independent positions that enabled Abel contagion.
Guarascio & Pianta (2025, EconStor): military AI R&D exceeded civilian AI R&D for the first time in 2024. HBR (2022): geopolitical conflict reduces civilian innovation investment as companies shift R&D toward defensive applications. MIT Sloan (2025): "Geopolitics and innovation can no longer be separated."
The structural diagnosis is clear. The question is not whether Abel contagion is possible — the Cold War model proves it is — but what structural conditions would need to be created for it to emerge again. Four conditions are necessary.
An individual or institution genuinely independent of both conflict sides — not aligned with US, Chinese, or Russian military interests. Currently: none at scale. The closest candidate is the open-source AI community, but it lacks the institutional density to reach the complex contagion threshold.
The equivalent of the space race — a shared goal that makes the conflict system look small by comparison. Candidates: climate change mitigation, pandemic prevention, extraterrestrial expansion. SpaceX was the closest, but Musk's DOGE alignment has compromised its structural independence.
Abel progress must be seeded from multiple independent, structurally diverse sources simultaneously — not from a single institution. The Cold War worked because both superpowers independently seeded the same outward goal. A single champion is insufficient for complex contagion.
As established in Part L — The Universal Discipline — political responsibility to use MI at the highest aggregation levels for social balance is the structural requirement that can create the conditions for Abel contagion. This is not a technical problem; it is a governance problem.
Locate yourself on the three structural conditions that determine whether Abel progress can spread from your current position. No numbers are displayed — only qualitative positions.
How independent is your current innovation or project from the dominant conflict system?
Fully embedded — funding, mandate, and goals are set by one side of the conflict
How many reinforcing contacts from structurally diverse sources support your Abel progress?
Single source — one person or institution reinforces the direction
Does your project redirect energy outward (expansion, new capacity) or inward (competition, defence)?
Fully inward — defending existing position, countering rivals, no expansion
Related self-assessments
Part LV names the structural mechanics of how Abel progress spreads — and why it is currently blocked. The Girard Trilogy (Parts LI–LIV) identified the problem: mimetic heat, the scapegoat threshold, and the Abel interrupt. Part LV names the structural conditions that make the Abel interrupt self-sustaining rather than episodic.