Or in other words, is what we evolved to do an indicator is what we should do? From the perspective of evoltionary science?
"Should" as in morally? No. Science is descriptive, not proscriptive. Trying to extrapolate morality/ethics from evolutionary science is the fallacy of "deriving an ought from an is". Just as it makes no sense to say "Ducks have beaks, therefore it is immoral for ducks not to have beaks", it makes no sense to say "Humans evolved to be monogamous/promiscuous/heterosexual/homosexual/social/selfish/religious/attached to their infants/carnivorous/vegetarian, therefore it is morally correct for humans to behave that way".
If you mean "should" as in "it'd be sensible", then in many cases, yeah, probably. If humans evolved to eat meat, it makes sense a vegetarian diet might be ill-suited, sub-optimal or downright damaging (of course, that applies to humans evolving to eat a vegetarian diet, too - not sure what the current theory on that one is). If humans have been raising their infants in a certain way since the dawn of time, it's probably a good idea to think twice before radically altering that approach.
Does technology eventually drive evolution? Hasn't it already?
I read an interesting book about reproductive technology - A Child Against All Odds, it was called - in which the author speculated that reproductive technology might well be helping create a race of infertile humans. Historically, the genes for low motility/mobility, short luteal phases, malformed uteri and so on would not have been passed on as often, because... duh... infertility. But now scientists can help the weakest sperm penetrate an egg by drilling a hole in the zona pellucida, and other such "unnatural" ways of helping "unfit" genes get passed on, future generations may become more and more reliant on technology to conceive.
That isn't necessarily disastrous, but it does mean the infrastructure, legislation, money and so on would have to be in place for all future generations. And it could lead to interesting social issues - ie, theoretically, at some point only the upper classes might be able to afford to reproduce. From the "perspective" of evolution? Well, evolution doesn't have a perspective. It's neither bad nor good, scientifically speaking, because science isn't about "bad" and "good". Those are philosophical concepts.