请问20万年这个是如何计算得到的？

2）在热兵器（且越来越热）时代，市场社会的武力会远远超出非市场社会，因而被后者打败的可能性较小，且越来越小。

没明白。。。。。。。要是以美国为例，市场制度越来越残，这种发展和它军力大小没什么关系啊

Human freedom is younger than the species. Its most important features are only several thousand years old an eyeblink in evolutionary history but in that short time it has transformed the planet in ways that are as salient as such great biological transitions as the creation of an oxygen-rich atmosphere and the creation of multicellular life. Freedom had to evolve like every other feature of the biosphere, and it continues to evolve today. Freedom is real now, in some happy parts of the world, and those who love it love wisely, but it is far from inevitable, far from universal. If we understand better how freedom arose, we can do a better job of preserving it for the future, and protecting it from its many natural enemies.

Our brains have been designed by natural selection, and all the products of our brains have likewise been designed, on a much swifter timescale, by physical processes in which no exemption from causality can be discerned. How, then, can our inventions, our decisions, our sins and triumphs, be any different from the beautiful but amoral webs of the spiders? How can an apple pie, lovingly created as a gift of reconciliation, be any different, morally, from an apple, “cleverly” designed by evolution to attract a frugivore to the bargain of spreading its seeds in return for some fructose? If these are treated as rhetorical questions only, implying that only a miracle could distingnish our creations from the blind, purposeless creations of material mechanisms, we will continue to spiral around the traditional problems of free will and determinism, in a vortex of uncomprehending mystery. Human acts acts of love and genius, as well as crimes and sins are just too far away from the happenings in atoms, swerving randomly or not, for us to be able to see at a glance how to put them into a single coherent framework. Philosophers for thousands of years have tried to bridge the gap with a bold stroke or two, either putting science in its place or putting human pride in its place or declaring (correctly, but unconvincingly) that the incompatibility is only apparent without going into the details. By trying to answer the questions, by sketching out the non-miraculous paths that can take us all the way from senseless atoms to freely chosen actions, we open up handholds for the imagination.

The compatibility of free will and science (deterministic or indeterministic it makes no difference) is not as inconceivable as it once seemed.

The topics investigated in this book are not just academic puzzles, delightful conceptual riddles to be solved or curious phenomena not yet captured by good theories. Many people see them to be matters of life and death, and that makes them matters of life and death, since people’s fears tend to amplify the purported implications of the different analyses and distort the arguments, making them into blunt instruments of propaganda for good or ill. The emotional resonance of the word “freedom,” like that of the word “God,” guarantees a partisan audience, eager to pounce on any false move, any threat, any concession. The effect is that tradition usually has a free ride, or close to it. Doctrines that are endorsed by tradition should be left unexamined if at all possible, people are inclined to think, as a matter of tactical wisom, since it will only sur up a hornet s nest ffw5 quesuon them. And so traditional thinking lives on, largely unchallenged, and accretes a pearly coating of spurious invulnerability over the years.

基于这两点，只要市场制度香火不绝，就不必太担心，而香火不绝的条件是全球社会足够庞大和多样化，可以确保其中总有几个可以接过香火，真正的危险在于同质化，同质化之后，离开了参照物，就可能发生逐步退化，最后崩溃湮灭。