Your scenario is one of many (infinite) possible scenarios and a probability can be put on it. In the context of your example, my point is that Google needs to

Your scenario is one of many (infinite) possible scenarios and a probability can be put on it. In the context of your example, my point is that Google needs to be confident that their math works out such that them inventing (hiring, R&D) and implementing (infrastructure) the carbon machine is profitable for their business. Unfortunately, they are a business, not a charity, so they'll have to be selling their new carbon tech eventually. If no one will buy it, then it won't be done, because it would have to be done at a loss. Back to real life, Google doesn't provide search because it makes the world a better place. Google provides search at the scale that they do because they had a clear business model and an incentive to do so. In an alternate reality, if it turned out nobody clicked ads, then Google would probably not exist at the scale that it does. Ten years ago, some decision to build 50,000 more processing servers would have been rejected by the board because they would have deemed it unprofitable. The profits a company makes gives them the ability to make a choice on where to expand. If they keep expanding into avenues that do not return profit, they will be given fewer of these choices -- and will eventually go bankrupt.