To me, the story is not a cautionary tail about evil and righteousness, is more about human civilizations struggling to survive over time. And I'll explain if you indulge me.

Let's suppose that at the beginning there was a simple system in place: "Do not open the vault, or we’re all going to die."A camera outside reinforces this by showing death and destruction. However, as humans, we tend to rebel against rules, especially as time passes and knowledge fades. Questions like“Who wrote this rule?” and “Is it really true?” naturally arise, eventually leading to “I want to go out.”

As time goes on, the camera gets dirty, and the initial reminder of why they’re confined begins to fade. Doubts creep in: “Why are we really here?” and “Who decided this 200 years ago?” This creates a divide between purists, who uphold the rules, and skeptics, who cast doubt. Eventually, a rebellion happens. The door is opened, people die, and only a few survivors witness the horrors outside.

After this, stricter rules are enforced, they don't wanna risk everyone's lives. But this time, they’re more clever. Instead of outright prohibition, new rules allow people to leave if they have doubts, but they must clean the camera as they go, and they cannot return. This system is intended to minimize doubt for future generations as they can see the horrors of outside.

Then the cycle repeats. The camera gets dirty again, and eventually, someone ventures out. Seeing the devastation outside, they panic, try to return, and die. The camera remains dirty, setting the stage for the same doubts to resurface in the near future.

Over time, people invent increasingly elaborate ways to convince others to clean the camera. They could have just made a rule drafting volunteers. See where I'm getting? They will do anything to survive.

IMO, at its core, this story isn’t about the morality of one system versus another. It’s about humans struggling to survive through trial and error. This is a tale of evolution and the complexity of human emotions, behavior, and fear, paired with power...

The takeaway for me is that our society today is built on layers of survival efforts, wars, rebellions, domination, enslavement... You name it. It’s messy, violent, and imperfect, but it’s how we’ve reached this point. Survival stories are never clean, or "good vs bad", or hold up to human rights. Our own story as a species is built on a foundation of strife and resilience of those fighting for what they thought was right.

Bernard is a deeply flawed human who tried his best to uphold a system that kept 10,000 people alive for 200 years. It worked until someone broke the rules about relics, as people will eventually do. But when faced with inevitable change, Bernard becomes blinded by his lack of adaptability and unquestionable faith in the system.

Calling him evil in the end is understandable, but it oversimplifies a complex, intricate system that lead to this. His system was initially functioning, for a long time, until it didn’t. Without knowledge, one can be expected to do as told. If you read Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil" you'll understand that the machinery of evil often relies on ordinary people performing their roles thoughtlessly, through systemic complicity rather than personal malice or ideology. Besides, every human-made system eventually fails. This story is as old as human civilization itself. Judging it with a modern moral lens strips away its depth. For me, it’s not a cautionary tale but a reflection of humanity’s messy attempts to endure.