Coordination, not outreach.
The questions on this site are larger than one organisation can answer. This page describes how someone outside FUTURE 2100 can actually work on one of them — and what we will not do to get your attention.
A structured coordination layer, and nothing adjacent to it.
What we are not building
- A social network or follower platform
- A creator or influencer programme
- Any form of political campaigning or persuasion system
- Voter, demographic or ideological targeting of any kind
- A newsletter list or a CRM
- Automated outreach at scale
- A vendor marketplace
What this is
- A way to attach a person or institution to a specific open question
- A structured object with a state, not a mailing list entry
- Consent-first: nobody is added by us and then contacted
- Work that produces evidence, or it is closed
- One channel, operated by people
People here are not an audience to acquire. They are potential participants in a question that is genuinely open.
Eight domains, chosen by what they can answer.
These are not audience segments. Each one exists because there is a specific open question it is better placed to attack than we are.
Religious and ethical thought
Traditions that have reasoned about obligation, trust, family and fairness for centuries — often about exactly the coordination problems a marriage or a lending system runs into. Treated as intellectual traditions, never ranked, never compared.
Government and public institutions
Public digital infrastructure, land records, rural administration and statistics. A neutral institutional channel: policy questions, data access, research collaboration.
Technology and research
AI, robotics, compute, semiconductors, space, energy, biotechnology. The frontier question is what becomes possible; ours is how it becomes reachable. Those are complementary.
Science and academia
Economists, anthropologists, geographers, historians. Several open questions are empirical questions that someone has already spent a career on.
Economic and business practice
People who have actually moved goods, extended credit or coordinated producers at scale, and know where the published account of how it works is wrong.
Practitioners in the environment
Producers, local institutions, small operators. The people whose reality the design is about, and the only ones who can say whether a description of it is accurate.
Writers and documentarians
Use the published thinking, with attribution, without asking. There is no press kit and no embargo list — the record is designed to be citable.
Capital
Read the thesis and the open questions first. The interactive sections do more than a deck would. Financial material is not published here.
A collaboration is an object with a state.
The same discipline the assumption tests use. If it cannot be attached to a question and moved to a state, it is a conversation rather than a collaboration — which is fine, but it is not this.
- Proposed
- Discussion
- Research
- Experiment
- Evidence
- Attached question
- Which open question this is about. A collaboration with no question attached has nothing to conclude, so this field is required.
- Proposed contribution
- Evidence, a counterargument, a method, data access, or domain judgement. Stated as something checkable rather than as an interest.
- Consent and visibility
- Private by default. Nothing is published, attributed or listed without explicit agreement, and agreement can be withdrawn.
- State and next action
- One named next step with one owner. Without it the object is dormant, and dormant objects get closed rather than accumulated.
- Outcome
- What changed: an assumption revised, evidence added, or a question retired. If nothing changed, that is recorded too.
We are not publishing a list of names.
A structured directory of named individuals — political figures sorted by country and by whether they hold office, religious figures sorted by tradition — is a straightforward thing to build, and we have decided against publishing one.
Two reasons, and the second is the stronger. Categorising named people by religious tradition or political position is sensitive information about real individuals, held without their involvement; assembling it is not neutral simply because the intent is. And whatever the stated purpose, a list of leaders sorted by affiliation reads as a targeting artefact, which is the precise thing this page says it is not.
So the categories above describe domains of contribution, not rosters of people. Where a collaboration does begin, it begins because someone chose to start it.
The data model for a participant directory is built, and it is deliberately empty. It requires a citable public source for every factual field, and — for a named individual — explicit consent before any public visibility. Tradition and public office are marked sensitive and default to omitted.
Several fields a directory like this would normally carry are absent by design rather than by oversight: no ranking, no influence score, no ideological position, no demographic segment, no constituency data, no outreach-campaign field. A directory that cannot rank or target people is a different kind of object from one that can, and the difference is in the schema rather than in a policy document.
Counted from the data, which is empty. When it is not, these numbers change on their own — and no record appears publicly without a source and, for a person, consent.
Two real schemas in the repository: the collaboration object above, and the participant model just described. There is no database, no account system and no form on this site today, and we would rather say so than build an interface that implies one.
Name the question, and what you would contribute.
The open questions are the useful place to start, because each one states the condition that would defeat it. A contribution aimed at one of those conditions is worth considerably more to us than general interest is.
A serious proposal gets a written answer from a person. If it changes our position, the revised assumption is published with the change noted and the contribution credited, unless you would rather it was not. We are not promising to answer everything.