"the nature/nurture dichotomy is tired, simplistic, and misleading"
There is no dichotomy, what you mean is that the people who were having the conversation were tired of it, simplistic and misled themselves.
Miles' following formulation says nothing about either nature or society, only describing the fact that the two parties have achieved a truce on the ground of ignorance:
'All notable human characteristics are produced by the complex interaction of genetic instructions expressed in varied environments. Is it impossible to assess the discrete impact of "nature" or "nurture" on most important human characteristics.'
Miles:
"Nine-tenths of us could disappear if a virulent incurable disease rapidly infected the world's population. Would that be evidence that evolution is irrelevant?"
Yes, indeed it would. The conditions for the spread - or arrest - of the disease would no longer be a process of natural selection, but one of social preparedness. The high mortality among AIDS sufferers in southern Africa, for example, or the spread of Malaria there, while Italy and Florida is free of it, is not due to evolution, but social evolution.
'Similarly, demonstrating that sociocultural factors can extend life or the number of people on the planet is not evidence that evolution doesn't matter anymore; it just means that evolution can't explain everything.'
Unless natural selection is taking place, evolution cannot explain anything of what is happening to the human species, only what happened up to the point when we diverted its effects.