I think the biggest problem with the observation is that it equates "the world" with "my world" and does not allow distinction between the two. We each individually, are the center of "my world" and expect "my world" to be organised around my wants, needs, desires and standards. And expectations like that allow us to do things like individually decide to forego commuting in favour of alternative options that vastly increase our individual quality of life, and simultaneously trickle that benefit down into being a more acceptable general option across "the world" in kind, which exactly as you say is hard to describe as any other way than a net benefit to the entire species.

But if we believe and behave that way without understanding the distinction between "my world" and "the world" that is indeed a problem, and we have a word for this old problem that is fairly used as a constant criticism of this increasingly prevalent modern affliction; Solipsism.

While it's hard to argue that solipsism is not a massive problem with the world today and something that is in dire need of being addressed, it's kind of a neat trick if you can convince people that merely optimising their own personal experience of the world by focusing on that experience and acting on their wants with personal autonomy is that exact kind of solipsism, and they should instead constantly defer to everybody else. If one person could do that for the entirety of the rest of humanity, they'd effectively be a permanent ruler by being the only agent in play with actual personal autonomy.

Not that this kind of thing happens, or anything, mind you.