Transparent? Human-time-focused? maintainable? Those properties aren't true of the present, nor have they been true for any large swath of human history that I'm aware of.
What's odd about this is that I agree with the crux of their statement, most futurism is focused on the extremes, and the sheer mundanity of how the "current future" has panned out often isn't well captured. However, I don't find their alternative persuasively different, and it seems to fall prey to exactly what they're criticizing ala utopianism.
I think fundamentally my issue is that a human centric view of the future seems as utopian as anything else they describe, vs a more realistic view to my eyes (and why dystopias resonate with me), driven by the same incentives that have, do, and will for the forseeable future continue to motivate us: Increased growth, rate of return, and efficiency, focused in the areas that most benefit those with incumbent power.
So rather than just saying "they're wrong let's all be pessimists" let me transition this into an open question. How do we realign incentives such that the article's aspirations are more reflective of where we see corps investing their effort? (This probably is a total rathole for even one of their enumerations, ala transportation, but it's where my head is at when I read this.)