by 
If I could wave the magic wand and settle the name game, I would say that we are futurists doing foresight. That is, the name of the professional is futurist, and the name of the field is foresight. 
Two fairly extended conversations about the name for what we do have taken place on listservs: one on APF and one on WFSF. These conversations seem to pop up about once a year. They are often (but not always) snuffed out by someone observing that we’ve had this conversation many times before – thus implying that we should not have it again. [On a related note, I was surprised that the first question to me as a futurist was what to call the field, as they were confused by the various candidates.]
Yes, it is repetitive, and perhaps frustrating if you’ve taken a few lumps in these conversations. I notice my own reluctance to contribute in anticipation of negative responses. Sometimes I jump in anyway and sometimes I lurk. The lurker in me is curious to see where the conversation goes “this time” and if there is any movement or is it just a rehash?
I think we should have this conversation much more often. Let’s keep talking in the spirit of getting as close to consensus as we can. Although I have stated my preference, I would be happy to get onboard with an alternative that had strong support.
If you take 1945 as the start of the field, it’s been 74 years. Seems like enough time to agree on a name, doesn’t it? So let’s keep talking, as often as we need to! – Andy Hines
Hey, sounds like a great topic for the new Foresight Slack. 😉