It seems to me that this post is conflating the use of the good/evil dichotomy for selfish ends (like controlling populations) with the dichotomy itself.

Natural selection was perverted into eugenics, but that doesn't make it untrue or not useful as a concept on its own?

I'm also perturbed by what appears to be circular reasoning in this take. The existence or non-existence of moral absolutes is a metaphysical question on the same level as "is there such a thing as divinity?" and the arguments here which reduce the idea to how the dichotomy is in usage, e.g., "to control," implicitly presume that there is not a moral absolute and there is only the social aspect.

Well that doesn't answer the question of whether good/evil is a meaningful dichotomy when you're already assuming it isn't other than its effects on the societal level.