How can humans evolve fast enough to keep up with technological advances?

Well, the main problem might be, that there is a powerful elite out there who is not interested in getting the masses educated. I'm not a conspiracy theoretician but I think it's a well known fact that dumb people are easier to controle and to manipulate (read for example C. Wright Mills' ). So the first step would be to think about power. Who owns the power, who rules the system? Who is interesting in changing the world into a better place and who is satisfied with the status quo?

The public schools in this country are barely able to produce a majority of kids who graduate from high school able to read and write (if they ever want to, that is).

And why is that? I mean the States are a rich country they could build a better public education system - if they want. But obviously they don't.

How do we teach people to think? How do we teach them that new is not necessarily better? That it is really not necessary to have every new toy the neighbors have – and, more importantly, how do we learn to evaluate the possible impact of these toys before we purchase them and put them to use?

Well "having every new toy the neighbors have" is an important factor in capitalism. Without consumption the system wouldn't work. Having two cars even if one would be enough, having a Blackberry even if a normal mobile phone would do it, buying a new plasma-TV even if the old one still works fine, driving a SUV while a normal car could do the same job. We are living in a culture which defines consumption as a central value. If you call that into question you should call the capitalist system itself into question.

This is a tricky question you are broaching, because unlike many of the issues put forth here on Newsvine, you are asking about how to change the fundamentals of our society, rather than how to fix a specific issue. But perhaps, this is the real question which needs to be asked, rather than all the smaller ones, which would fall into place if this larger one could be addressed.
I think the first answer to your question lies within all of us. Mother Teresa once said (I am paraphrasing), "You want to know how to change the world? Go home and take care of your children." Each one of us has to model the change they want to see in the world. Do it proudly and clearly, without hiding behind a mask of acceptablilty for others, and with respectful answers ready when others question your choices. If you have children, show them what it means to live a life full of meaning, and talk to them and their friends as if they were real people, so that they can understand why you make the choices that you do. Give people something to believe in, especially the children, so that they will object to disappointment.
Secondly, use your individual strengths to change the world. Everyone is different. I spent years wallowing in my own "helplessness", because I am not a "group" oriented person, and the idea of joining an organization that tried to change the world gave me the heebejeebies. But I do o.k. with writing, and one day it occurred to me that I could do that, instead. So I started writing letters to politicians, papers, anything that would sit still long enough to be inflicted with my opinions. Sometimes I feel that these efforts have been effective, sometimes not, but it's all worth something. Some people are group people, and I am so glad they are out there. Some people can teach, and love to do so. Some folks are good organizers, and can get movements going with just a few posters and a benefit concert. Whatever your strengths are, put them to good use to help get alternative viewpoints out there. No matter how small the issue. Changing one person's mind about something small may have long term effects that you cannot even imagine.
Thirdly, stop being afraid. Do your research, find out how little there really is to be afraid of, and refuse to let other people's fear-mongering pass you by. The system in which we currently live thrives on fear, and fear is easily replaced by knowledge. Encourage others to counter their fear with a few minutes of research. Everyone benefits from this. And never, ever let your fear stop you from speaking out about things you feel are wrong. Lastly, support the alternatives. There are many businesses out there, and for every one which is destroying the future with their short-term profits, there is another providing the same goods and services in a way which is more responsible. In a capitalist society, this does make a difference. And while I agree that capitalism is a system which will eventually destroy itself, we may as well work with the tools at hand. The more the responsible businesses succeed, the more the others will come around in an effort to compete. Don't give up hope. Change is always slow, and the larger the paradigm, the longer it takes to change it. Every little thing makes a difference, and the children are always watching.

I agree with Celestina this is a tricky Question. How to answer it without creating 100 new questions is hard. Humans have reached a point in their evolution where it is no longer possible to evolve any further by natural means. The brain size has reached the physical limit of the females reproductive system. That is women can't give birth to babies with heads larger than they are now. Medical science has removed the random element from our lives by providing drugs for all manner of maladies, so random mutation is out. We construct our world around our physical abilities, and our climate is artificially stabilized (Air con) so adapting to environmental change has ceased as we control our environment

it may be necessary to use technology to push the envelope of evolution in our favour but the idea of some sci-fi horror flick turning into reality is something I do not wish to speculate on.

I think the crux of the problem is that we are not all evolving at the same rate. Much of the world's population (and most of its leaders) still think and act much as our cave-dwelling ancestors did. A few thousand years is a very short time in evolutionary standards, after all. The slightly more advanced among us are responsible for the leaps in progress which are poorly utilized or even misused by the rest. Often their talents are recruited or conscripted by the alpha dogs of modern society who are almost by definition less evolved. This is why so many technologies are first developed in military applications.

Evolution is not a leisurely, gradual process. It involves "critical masses" and quantum shifts (the "hundredth monkey effect"). The question is - how do we jump-start the process? Education is not enough. Education imparts information and teaches skills but can't bestow insight, creativity, and wisdom. What is needed is an almost global shift in awareness. I don't have a clue what could bring that about..

I do not think that the term "evolution" is the correct one to use in this case. Evolution does not have a goal in mind and thus people are not "more evolved" than others. Nor do I believe we are entirely outside the realm of evolution as a force driving humanity. Most of the problems and questions that are brought up in this article seem to involve a better system of education. An early emphasis on critical thinking and skepticism in school would help immensely. There are always going to be people below and above average in intelligence (obviously) who drive or hinder human progress. An educated populace will be more likely to produce educated children who can handle the complex world around them.

Also, it seems many of these problems mentioned originally are not really about humanity trying to keep up with technology. Genetically modified seeds are immensely successful and have saved millions of lives, so if a few areas have low yields or problems, then we go back to the drawing board. The same is true with many human drugs on the market. Every human is different and unexpected results are to be expected, which is why the FDA exists in the first place (though large amounts of money can influence the system unfortunately). Environmental awareness is almost certainly at the highest level in human history, and is turning around in many places (but is it to late?). These, as well as several other points, are not about making humans "evolve faster" (whatever that might mean) but rather constructing a more efficient way of governing ourselves and interacting with our world. Sometimes governments, even democracies, are the last ones to understand an issue, so how can the people try and change that? How do we balance capitalism with helping those in need? How do we keep governments, economics, and even ourselves in check? These are all questions that have more to do with our cultures than evolution.

When I was posting about the Propaganda game that Djheuty mentioned above, I was reminded of an article I read several years ago (I think it was in Wired) about the Amish. The Amish, it explained, are not entirely opposed to advanced technology, they just want it kept firmly in a place where it cannot interrupt or detract from more important things in life. For example, family meals. How many times have you sat down to dinner with your family, whom you have not seen all day and with whom you would really like to reconnect and share the day's events...just to have the phone ring right when the first conversation gets going. At which point, even if you are a person to whom such daily rituals are important, you will answer the phone ("It might be an emergency!") or everyone pauses in their conversation to wait for the answering machine. So the Amish communities have phones, they just keep them in a seperate building out away from their houses, so that they won't cut in on more important things. Likewise, in the Waldorf pedagogy, unlike most of the rest of the educational movements in this country, no t.v.'s, computers, etc. are brought into the classroom until the children are teenagers. Rudolph Steiner (who founded Waldorf education, and was a man of many rather unusual beliefs) believed that technology, when presented to very young children, was such a powerful force that the children would come to be subservient to it, rather than recognizing it as a tool of which they were in charge.
My point here is that perhaps in this "evolution of consciousness" which we are discussing, part of the solution lies in our understanding the place and limits of technology. It is our servant, not the other way around. We can turn off our phones, have them serve us rather than feeling victimized by them. We can choose our exposure to the media and consciously choose what we do with it. We can use the medical technology available to us, when we decide it is what we need, and walk away from it when the risks outweigh the benefits. In this country, we keep waiting for the latest, greatest thing to solve all our problems, and when the latest technology arrives we scramble to get it like junkies. This does not have to be so.

This point seems slightly flawed.

How can humans keep up with technology?
Aren't humans developing technology?

Perhaps technology is how humans are evolving currently?
We'll never know until we can look back from our futures and determine where we were.

For now, is it conversations such as these that create some issues?
Instead of talking about living, and worrying about what we need, desiring what we think we want, we should just live.

Classandra I just got a comment in one of my posts Here I need help I dont know how to respond.

What can we do to help the human race evolve faster?

Simply slow down and focus on the important things. There have been great advances in gadget technology, but our (as you pointed out), huge flaws in education. We concern ourselves with Brad and Angelina's baby and what is the deal with TomKat, but have lost family values when it comes to ourselves, and we push to look into the sky when we haven't figured out how deep our ocean really is... focusing on where we are now will make the path for the future that much more clear and it seems to me that we don't care about the past, only with the now, which ironically is overshadowed by the tomorrow.

Fascinating discussion, I agree with Brian White that biological evolution is less imperative than cultural or political or for want of a better phrase 'humanitarian evolution'.

I'm also personally exited about the increasing ability we have to both grow our own organs and integrate ourselves with tech that, carried to its conclusion, makes us 'post human'

But the question asked as I see it is a practical one, what can we do now to help ourselves collectively advance as a species.

If there were a way to secure the internets future such that it could not, by design, be taken down. (and I'm aware of swarming and other peer to peer options and live in the hope that that will come to pass)
Then I would be more confident that our 'humanitarian evolution' would be simply a matter of time.

I believe it revolves around communication, we used to talk to our families, workmates, our own kind so to speak. Cultural differences were borders only a minority ever passed freely and cultural borders have always been an effective tool to be politically exploited.

The internet began in the same way, effectively cataloguing cultures.

It seems to me, and this is obviously entirely speculative, that, even though it serves a minority of humanity and is fairly embryonic in its development, the internet culturally has just begun to move from being used to reinforce particular cultural identity, towards a slightly more sophisticated and curious mode in which opposing cultural identities are engaged. (newsvine case in point)
This breaks down a lot of preconceptions and this phenomenon, if able to expand alongside the expansion of its userbase, could be the key to circumnavigating present Machiavellian based political systems.

Somewhere or other recently had an 'Orange revolution' a mass of people with similar goals used a color to identify themselves and in so doing broadcast both their political will and their sheer size enough to attain their political goals which were the death-knell of the political status quo they opposed.

I think I'm about done. However I'll just add that i think children at heart have a certain sense of 'pan humanism' that, being culturally irrelevant, withers.
If this could be rekindled somehow and communicated then we would be a force, if large enough, to be effective.
Theres an individual I came across here at newsvine, not the type of person i would normally come across (although i am lucky to come across a great many types internationally) Shawn Gorden. He wrote a piece about himself and towards the end he listed 'lesser know facts about me' one of the more startling for me was 'I love you'
I've never met the guy but for some reason I was convinced that he in fact did.
Thats what I mean by communication.

Shawn, I had no idea you were above my post. and sorry i spelt your last name wrong.

Well a couple of things have cropped up since I last posted that have hopefully the tiniest bearing on possible changes in what I see as our social evolution, encompassing political, tech, global empowerment.
Firstly, Homeless bloggers.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71153-0.html
and here
http://thehomelessguy.blogspot.com/

There's also a new brazilian wifi thing that allows people to link up and transmit further an original wifi signal

But rekindling panhumanism, it would have to be done fairly quietly, it's bound to threaten many.
I'd suggest some type of easily recognisable kindness, able to be carried out by those with little as well as those with much. Sharing meals perhaps, cooking and offering food is one of our oldest rituals.
I'm sorry I should give this more energy I will get back to it but trivia calls.

What can we do to help the human race evolve faster?

Oh I know!

We clone the perfect human with the perfect DNA to take whatever concoction comes out of pharmaceuticals, we create a biological Programmable Logical Control, that allows our children to download knowledge endlessly.

O let's go and evolve!

Evolution anyone?