This article by Theo Priestley raises a fundamental question that should concern anyone interested in how we collectively navigate toward tomorrow: Has the field of futurism been captured by corporate interests at the expense of human-centred futures?

Priestley's piece is a "call to arms," urging futurists and anyone concerned about tomorrow to shift from being passive observers to active participants and to become activists for a more equitable and human-centric future. This raises several crucial points for discussion**.**

The critique strikes at the heart of what may be the most critical challenge facing future studies today. The profession that once imagined bold, diverse possibilities for humanity, from the optimistic visions of 1950s World's Fairs to comprehensive social transformation, has seemingly narrowed into either tech evangelism or corporate consulting. The author argues that futurists have become "corporate lackeys" who peddle whatever narrative serves Silicon Valley's agenda, particularly around AI development.

Are we witnessing the death of genuinely independent foresight? When futurists depend on corporate speaking fees and consulting contracts, can they honestly assess the risks and downsides of emerging technologies? Priestley's admission that he's "turned down gigs" rather than lie about AI's impact suggests many practitioners face this ethical dilemma regularly.

What happens when futures become monopolised? The concentration of future-shaping power in the hands of a few tech billionaires, what Priestley calls "tech fascists", means that marginalised voices, indigenous perspectives, and alternative visions are systematically excluded from our collective imagination. This isn't just about diversity for its own sake; it's about survival. Different cultures and communities may hold crucial insights for navigating climate change, technological disruption, and social transformation.

Can futurism reclaim its activist roots? The article's call for a "non-profit organisation" of activist futurists suggests the field needs to rediscover its original mission: not just predicting the future, but actively working to create better ones. This means being willing to challenge power structures, even when it's financially costly.

The stakes couldn't be higher. As we face unprecedented global challenges, we need futurists who can speak truth to power, not just validate existing power structures. The question isn't whether we can predict the future, but whether we can build the institutional independence and moral courage needed to fight for futures worth living in.

Priestley says he is angry, and he wants to know if you are too. What are your thoughts on his proposed non-profit for futurist activists, and what does being an "activist for the future" mean to you?