You have just listed a name and a title, but not the idea(s) associated with that person. Perhaps if your list also included associated ideas, it would be easier to discuss the merits of each nominee.

Someone else has put thought into this idea–Janna Anderson of Elon University–as well. https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/964/2019/07/Futures-Studies-Timeline.pdf

With her format it is easier to evaluate the candidates since it includes an an associated reason. For example, you would have to convince me that Michael Crichton is worthy. His dystopian works on genetic engineering have cost the US bioeconomy an estimated trillion dollars. I have read several of his novels and threw them away since he made so many errors in molecular biology. My understanding is that he was trained in psychiatry. He did not write National Academy of Science reports or would not be considered an expert in molecular biology at the Asilomar Conference. He wrote science fiction. Perhaps Crichton was concerned about human health and the environment, but as it turned out he was wrong.

Also, why did you not include Ray Kurzweil [Law of Accelerating Returns], Norbert Wiener [cybernetics], and Alvin Toffler [perhaps popularized future studies to the general public more than any other person], but Crichton? Or why not Marvin Minsky, Claude Shannon, and John McCarthy who coined AI and held the seminal conference?