I might have already made this thread, but I think it's an interesting point to consider.

While natural selection is scarcely at work in today's humans, sexual selection is still very much at work. The human of the future is going to be shaped by today's sexual preferences.

The media is in charge of human evolution.

No, actually it isn't going to be shaped by today's sexual preferences. It's going to be shaped by the uneducated and poor, because they have the most children, and therefore succeed reproductively compared to the intelligent and rich, who only have 1 or 2 children at a much later age.

(except for Mormons.)

think before you type

I cannot see a situation where only people with certain sexual preferences would survive and mate, passing their sexual preference genes, if there even is such a thing, onto their children, while all the other people with other sexual preferences die out.

I'm not sure why Dobagoh was downvoted. He's correct. Statistics show the lower class have, on average, much larger families than the middle and upper classes.

The class thing isn't really relevant.

The idea isn't that only certain sexual preferences will survive, it's that reproduction is now dictated by one's sexual appeal rather than his or her ability to adapt to and survive in a particular environment.

I guess ugly people are always going to breed with ugly people though.

The class thing is entirely relevant.

Reproduction over the species is not largely dictated by sexual preferences. Ugly people (to my knowledge) are not significantly less likely to have children than attractive people are. Rich people on the other hand are less likely to have children than poor people.Therefore in the future a larger percentage of the population will be the offspring of today's poor than today's rich compared to the percentage of poor people to rich people today.

This doesn't say whether these people will be rich or poor, only that they will have descended from people that are. It's hard to say what this means for society, only that the traits of people that aren't wealthy today are likely to be more prevalent.

I'm pretty sure really ugly people don't reproduce that much.

Also I don't know of any genetic differences between rich and poor people, so that is a point on economics rather than biology.

ITT:
People who don't understand what the word "Evolution" means.

Yes Jesus, you showed us good.

Do you want to actually back up your claims with evidence, or do you just want to pretend to know more than others?