If you aren’t ready for an honest opinion you may disagree with, avoid reading on.

There’s a hypocritical paradox to be found when saying "one’s universe revolves around the self,” and simultaneously turning around to criticize anyone who genuinely abides by it. If you haven’t caught on to where this is going already, let’s dive right in.

I’m very much in agreement with the notion of having my world revolve around me. If I wasn’t the main character of my own story, I’d be quite disappointed, and would honestly feel out of control of my own destiny. So if it’s my world, I should be free to pick and choose certain factors - within my control - that affect said world, without really having to worry about what anyone else thinks, correct?

What if I chose to divert my energy away from pressing worldly issues? What happens if I’m not interested in the Middle Eastern conflicts? What happens if I’m not concerned about the mass shootings happening in rapid succession? Why does having my world revolve around me suddenly become a shocking notion if I choose to forsake global unrest?

Allow me to stop playing Devil’s Advocate for a minute, and shine a more personal light on my viewpoint: I am a recent graduate, struggling to independently make ends meet. I have financial, career and relationship burdens to worry about. As societal constructs go, these are three vital pillars to a stable existence. Together, they demand constant vigilance, time and most — if not all — of my daily energy quota.

Around me, it seems like the world is going up in flames: racism, mass shootings, abuse of power by the police, etc. Yet those are just the domestic issues. Worldwide you’ll find political unrest, coups, oppression and genocide. As a human being, I believe it is our duty to help our brethren where we can, but at what cost? Helping others, mentally or physically, requires energy and time I don’t have, and I can’t support myself financially so that’s out of the question, too. It really comes down to a choice of who would I rather help: myself, or people I don’t know, who I’d have to go to great lengths to impact in very small ways.

The answer is simple: My only fealty is to myself. I have nothing against helping those in need, but it’s simply self-preservation. Is this method of ensuring my survival something to be penalized for? While a lot of people would have you think so, I disagree. I can cut out people whose negative energy effect my life. I can remove myself from environments that are negative, so I sure as hell can ignore a distant situation that negatively affects my energy if it makes my life easier. To clarify, these global matters bother me greatly, but if I keep up with them too closely I find myself extremely drained, helpless and low on the energy I so desperately need. I constantly make a choice: to not care about the rest of the world, because I must ensure my own survival first.

I have no interest in humanitarian work either, because it isn’t a calling. It doesn’t provide me with the immense gratification I feel it would if I genuinely enjoyed it. That being said, I try to affect my world in different ways: by listening to friends who need it, by expressing my emotions and thoughts honestly so others may have some support should they share my views. It might be small, but those are the ways I feel useful to others (and they don’t leech energy from me either.)

Assuredly, it is unwise to turn a blind eye to events that have the potential to affect me in the future, but it is just as foolhardy to waste precious energy. There are also a couple of reasons that solidify my aforementioned choice: First, current global and domestic crises are improbable to escalate to a point where they'd end up affecting me. Second, should they intensify, my survival priorities would change and energy would be diverted accordingly. Third, I can have a greater positive effect within my locus of control, rather than inefficiently allocating my energy by dwelling on events wholly removed from me.

Before I conclude, I'd like to refute two outstanding disagreements to my argument. The first cites self-preservation as a selfish instinct. I happen to agree; it's an innately selfish trait... that's also conveniently allowed us to survive this long. In a survival based case, selfishness is not a detriment. The second disagreement states "your problems aren't that bad, when compared to the crises of the world." Correct, although 'problem' is always a relative term. Struggling with finances and job searches may pale in comparison to being a refugee, but beating myself up over being 'lucky enough' to only deal with dwindling funds doesn't make it any less pressing. Needless to say, I am obviously grateful to be in a more favorable situation.

If you've read through this entire article and are doubting my character, I cannot blame you. However, I will say that I am being honest with myself and if this bothers you irrationally, then you may need to do some introspective thinking as to why that is. This is an opinion I steadfastly support, because I'll be damned if I'm told not to be my own number one priority.

Please share this article if it got you thinking (or riled up,) I'm sure you're just as curious to know who supports or opposes this point of view.