Systemic Altruism
← Back to the cohort
Justice & public goodsPreliminary editorial review

Institute for the Future

Provides foresight research, training and tools for organizations and communities to explore possible futures and act under uncertainty.

Visit the organization ↗

Systemic Altruism practice potential: 70–80/100
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.

Who this work enables

Tools & support for charities: Foresight methods and facilitation resources with documented philanthropy applications.

Humanity’s Checklist source match

Vision — editorial, partial alignment.

Making possible futures discussable and actionable is a partial match to the checklist’s vision theme; it is not the same as building its proposed Vision Market.

Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.

Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.

Compare alternatives for a funder →

The proposed pathway

Shared foresight tools and institutional future-planning capacity

Six dimensions, with rationale

Structural depth

3 / 4

Targets recurring institutional planning practices and assumptions rather than forecasting a single event.

Institutional reach

4 / 4

The documented work spans public, private and civic organizations across issues; potential reach is broader than a single program.

Durability

2 / 4

Planning skills and scenarios can remain useful, but conditions change and foresight practice requires renewal.

Scalability

3 / 4

Frameworks and exercises can be reused, while facilitation, training and some proprietary materials constrain access and replication.

Funding additionality

Unreviewed

Unknown: a current marginal funding gap, counterfactual and delivery capacity have not been audited.

Community agency

Unreviewed

Unknown: participation, open access or stated values do not establish audited consequential decision rights for affected communities.

Evidence and selection

Organization reported; documented official mechanism

Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.

A testable next question

Do organizations using foresight make better robust decisions and sustain useful experiments than comparable teams, rather than merely reporting confidence or producing attractive scenarios?

Review confidence: Moderate for documented design; low for systemic attribution. Current foresight and planning-capacity mechanism, with explicitly historical philanthropy examples; not a rating of forecast accuracy.

What remains uncertain

A compelling scenario or workshop is not a prediction, shared mandate or proven improvement in decisions. Some materials and training are proprietary or restricted; legacy philanthropy resources are labeled historical.

Sources to inspect

Propose a sourced correction →

Axis review: 2026-10-27 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage