Questions of technological determinism remind me of similar dichotomies -- mind|body, nature|nurture, and so forth. The problem seems created by a misposing of the question. One asks whether a presumed factor in some change has all impact or no impact, or some impact; one measures the impact on change as though the factors were addeded incrementally. This misrepresents causal relationships.
The seems like something in the family of the "complex clause" fallacy. A couple of metaphors might clarify what I mean.
Consider factors like "technology" and "human nature" to speak very broadly, as multiplying against each other instead of aggregating. It becomes absurd to ask whether in the equation 3*2=6, the 3 or 2 is more important: There are two threes, three twos. Removing either nullifies the entire result. Similarly, ask oneself whether the length or breadth of a 2*3 table is more important. One might be tempted to say that the length is more important, since the # is greater, but how much length remains if one removes the width?