Call it "Stress" or "Responsibility"?

A not-so-peaceful night; a film of small small tasks to be done at work tomorrow rolling-over in my head; apparent insomnia to an otherwise-sleepyhead.... All these things make me aware of the so-called "stress" building up... And as usual awakens a thought to be written about...

First question that comes to my mind: How do you define stress?... Something which gets on your nerves... An adrenaline-filled state which should not be persistent, but somehow it is... Well, there can be many more definitions...

But the idea here is, do you really call every such situation - "stress" per se? What about something called "responsibility" or "ownership"? Now, most of the wise people would say that, "There is a thin line between stress and responsibility"... Agreed, totally... But is it always really about maintaining that thin line? Probably not...

photo credits: http://www.setster.com/

Fascinated by the science fiction and stuff, I would put the superheros as an example...
Let's say, as they show in most of these movies; the Earth is under attack by aliens and it is at the verge of losing its existence... What will happen if the superheros keep on weighing their "responsibility" and their "stress" levels before actually fighting the threats?

Let's forget about the superheros... If we talk about the real heros, our soldiers... What if they start taking the extra effort they put-in; or the extra stress they handle; or the lack of peace they face, as a favor to the nation? What if they deny to go an extra-mile, just for the sake of maintaining the thin line between "stress-responsibility"...

And I feel it's really not only about the soldiers or warriors... It is about many ordinary people in real-simple scenarios in every set-up... Somewhere or the other, few of them go an extra-mile, and absorb little more "stress", so that the entire system remains "stress-free"... They practically screw their theory of "stress-responsibility thin line" (or work-life balance), so that the system they are a part of, remains robust... To me it seems that, it is the ultimate balance of stress within a system which counts, rather than the balance of stress within an individual... Coz otherwise the system with all "stress-managed" individuals will itself be under stress, isn't it???