Latest / Talking Science / Plastics and Polymers – The Miracle Material We Can't Put Down

Transcript

Plastics and Polymers – The Miracle Material We Can't Put Down · Talking Science

• 0:00
  There is a very good chance that the brightly
• 0:04
  colored plastic toothbrush you used when you
• 0:06
  were four years old is currently sitting perfectly
• 0:09
  intact in a landfill somewhere. Yeah. And it
• 0:12
  will probably just remain there for the next
• 0:13
  500 years. It is a totally sobering image, but
• 0:16
  I mean, it's entirely scientifically accurate
• 0:19
  based on the materials we're dealing with. Right.
• 0:21
  So I want to ask you to do something simple for
• 0:23
  a second. Just look around exactly where you
• 0:26
  are right now and try to count the plastic. Oh,
• 0:28
  that's a fun exercise. Yeah. I mean, look at
• 0:30
  the casing of your phone or the keys on your
• 0:33
  keyboard. Buttons on your shirt. Exactly. Even
• 0:36
  the paint on the walls or, you know, the microscopic
• 0:39
  fibers woven into the carpet under your feet.
• 0:41
  We barely even notice it anymore because it is
• 0:44
  just omnipresent. The sheer volume of it in our
• 0:47
  immediate field of vision is staggering when
• 0:50
  you actually stop and... Take inventory. It really
• 0:53
  is. And that brings us to the mission of today's
• 0:56
  deep dive. We are looking at a material that
• 1:00
  in a little over a century went from literally
• 1:03
  not existing to being the most abundant human
• 1:06
  -made material on Earth. Yep. We want to understand
• 1:09
  the miracle and the mess of plastic. drawing
• 1:12
  entirely from our source material today. Because
• 1:14
  it undeniably is a miracle material, right? Oh,
• 1:17
  absolutely. It's cheap, lightweight, moldable
• 1:20
  into practically any shape, and it's incredibly
• 1:23
  durable. But that... exact list of virtues, especially
• 1:28
  the durability, is the reason it's become a massive
• 1:31
  global environmental headache. Right. And to
• 1:33
  really understand how we got to this point of
• 1:36
  total saturation, our sources say we have to
• 1:39
  change our perspective. How so? We need to zoom
• 1:42
  all the way in, like way down. To grasp why plastic
• 1:46
  conquered the modern world and why it is so remarkably
• 1:49
  difficult to get rid of, we have to look at it
• 1:52
  deep down at the molecular level. OK, let's unpack
• 1:54
  this, because I was reading through the source
• 1:56
  material and they frequently use the word polymer.
• 1:58
  Yes. And I want to picture this practically.
• 2:01
  Imagine a massive, almost infinitely long chain
• 2:04
  of those plastic pot beads from when you were
• 2:06
  a kid. Oh, yeah. The ones that snap together.
• 2:08
  Right. Or just interlocking toy blocks snap together
• 2:12
  one after another, stretching out from. That
• 2:14
  seems to be the fundamental architecture here.
• 2:16
  That is a brilliant way to visualize it. The
• 2:19
  word itself actually gives away the structure.
• 2:21
  Really? Yeah. Polymer comes from Greek, translating
• 2:24
  to many parts. Ah, okay. So that single repeating
• 2:27
  unit, the individual pop bead or that single
• 2:29
  toy block in your analogy, is called a monomer.
• 2:32
  Meaning one part. Exactly. When you take... thousands
• 2:36
  or even millions of these monomers and bond them
• 2:38
  together end to end, you create a polymer chain.
• 2:41
  So plastic is essentially an incredibly long
• 2:44
  chain of identical tiny parts just strung together.
• 2:49
  Yes. And in the case of synthetic plastics, these
• 2:51
  chains are almost always built around a backbone
• 2:54
  of carbon atoms. Why carbon? Well, carbon is
• 2:57
  uniquely suited for this because it forms these
• 2:59
  incredibly strong, stable bonds with its neighbors.
• 3:03
  So it's basically the ultimate structural. foundation.
• 3:05
  Exactly. It allows these chains to grow to enormous
• 3:08
  lengths without, you know, spontaneously falling
• 3:11
  apart. But wait, if all plastics are just long
• 3:14
  chains of carbon, how do we get such wildly different
• 3:18
  materials? What do you mean? Well, I mean, the
• 3:21
  flimsy soft plastic of a grocery bag feels completely
• 3:25
  different from the hard, rigid plastic of a soda
• 3:28
  bottle cap, right? Or a car bumper. Oh, right.
• 3:31
  I see. Well... It comes down to two specific
• 3:34
  choices in the chemistry lab. First, the specific
• 3:37
  monomer you choose as your starting bead. And
• 3:39
  second, how you arrange those long chains once
• 3:42
  they are actually built. Interesting. So if you
• 3:44
  choose a certain starting molecule and the resulting
• 3:47
  chains just lie next to each other like a bowl
• 3:49
  of cooked spaghetti. They can slide past each
• 3:51
  other easily. Exactly. That molecular movement
• 3:54
  gives you a soft, flexible material like your
• 3:57
  shopping bag. But I assume there is a way to
• 3:59
  stop them from sliding around. There is. Chemists
• 4:02
  can introduce molecules that essentially tie
• 4:04
  those cells together. Oh, like the rungs of a
• 4:07
  ladder connecting two long rails. That's a great
• 4:09
  way to put it, yeah. The technical term is cross
• 4:11
  -linking. Cross -linking. Right. Once those chains
• 4:14
  are chemically tethered to one another, they
• 4:16
  can't slide. The entire structure locks up. And
• 4:19
  you end up with a rigid, hard material, like
• 4:22
  that bottle cap. You've got it. Pick a small
• 4:24
  molecule, string billions of copies together,
• 4:27
  and decide whether to tether them or let them
• 4:29
  slide. That is basically the recipe for every
• 4:31
  plastic on Earth. See, I have always thought
• 4:33
  of plastic as the ultimate unnatural material,
• 4:36
  like the absolute pinnacle of synthetic human
• 4:40
  interference. Sure, most people do. But looking
• 4:42
  at our sources, the concept of building things
• 4:44
  out of long chemical chains isn't a human invention
• 4:48
  at all. Nature got there millions of years before
• 4:50
  we did. Nature is actually the original master
• 4:53
  architect of polymers. I mean, you interact with
• 4:55
  them constantly. Like what? Well, cellulose,
• 4:58
  which is the material that provides the rigid
• 5:00
  structure for wood and leaves and plant fibers,
• 5:03
  that's a natural polymer. Wow. The silk of a
• 5:06
  spider's web, the keratin in your hair. The natural
• 5:09
  rubber that oozes from rubber trees, all polymers.
• 5:12
  Yeah, and the source has mentioned it goes straight
• 5:14
  to the core of our own biology, too. Like the
• 5:17
  DNA inside our cells, the proteins doing the
• 5:20
  heavy lifting in our bodies. Exactly. Those are
• 5:22
  all long chains of repeating units built on the
• 5:25
  exact same pop bead principle. We basically just
• 5:28
  hijacked nature's blueprint. Okay, but if nature
• 5:31
  already had this incredible blueprint, why did
• 5:35
  we decide to start from scratch? Why did we pivot
• 5:38
  away from natural ingredients to create this
• 5:41
  massive explosion of synthetic plastics? What's
• 5:44
  fascinating here is that the pivot really happened
• 5:46
  in the early 20th century. Human chemists looked
• 5:50
  at nature's polymers and realized they didn't
• 5:52
  have to stick to nature's limited menu of starting
• 5:55
  ingredients. By looking at the hydrocarbon rich
• 5:58
  molecules found in crude oil and natural gas,
• 6:01
  they found they could build entirely novel polymers
• 6:04
  from scratch. So they were pulling. monomers
• 6:06
  from fossil fuels instead of trees or plants.
• 6:09
  Right. And doing so gave them unprecedented control.
• 6:12
  Because they could tune it. Exactly. When you
• 6:14
  build from scratch, you can tune the properties
• 6:16
  entirely to order. Need a material that is perfectly
• 6:20
  transparent but won't shatter when dropped? We
• 6:23
  can engineer a chain for that. Yep. Need something
• 6:25
  that resists boiling heat or insulates against
• 6:28
  electricity? we can build a chain for that too
• 6:31
  so this ability to custom design super materials
• 6:33
  sparked an absolute revolution in manufacturing
• 6:37
  completely reshaping medicine food preservation
• 6:40
  global transportation everything it makes complete
• 6:43
  sense why we went all in on this we found a way
• 6:46
  to create cheap custom tuned materials But here's
• 6:51
  where it gets really interesting, because this
• 6:52
  brings up a huge biological contradiction. It
• 6:55
  does. Since nature practically invented the idea
• 6:58
  of polymers, you would assume the natural world
• 7:01
  would know how to handle them. Yet when it comes
• 7:03
  to the polymers humans make, nature seems completely
• 7:06
  helpless. That biological mismatch is actually
• 7:09
  the crux of the entire environmental issue. Like
• 7:12
  if a leaf falls off a tree, it vanishes into
• 7:14
  the forest floor in a matter of weeks. Right.
• 7:16
  But... If a synthetic plastic water pipe gets
• 7:19
  left in that same dirt it can sit there for centuries.
• 7:23
  Why is that? It comes down to the microscopic
• 7:25
  tools available in the environment. When that
• 7:28
  natural leaf hits the ground, an invisible army
• 7:30
  of bacteria and fungi immediately gets to work.
• 7:34
  Okay. And over millions of years of evolution,
• 7:36
  those microbes have developed highly specific
• 7:38
  enzymes. You can think of these enzymes as biological
• 7:41
  scissors. Biological scissors. Yeah. They are
• 7:44
  perfectly shaped to snip the chemical bonds that
• 7:47
  hold natural polymers like cellulose together.
• 7:50
  So they have the exact right tool for the job.
• 7:53
  But what happens when they encounter a human
• 7:56
  -made plastic? Well... They encounter an entirely
• 7:59
  novel arrangement of carbon atoms that was engineered
• 8:02
  in a lab. Which they've never seen before. Exactly.
• 8:05
  Our synthetic plastics have only been around
• 8:06
  for about a century. Which is just a millisecond
• 8:09
  in evolutionary time. Right. So when those same
• 8:11
  micros bump into a synthetic plastic chain, their
• 8:14
  biological scissors just slide right off. They
• 8:17
  simply do not have the chemical mechanism to
• 8:19
  cut those new artificial bonds. So because nothing
• 8:22
  in nature can eat it, a plastic item just sits
• 8:25
  there. persisting in the environment indefinitely.
• 8:28
  Yes. It's crazy. The very thing we engineered
• 8:31
  into the material, its absolute unyielding stability,
• 8:35
  turns out to be its fatal flaw as a pollutant.
• 8:38
  It really is. We wanted a medical device that
• 8:41
  wouldn't degrade on a shelf or a pipe that wouldn't
• 8:44
  rot in our walls. We designed it to never fail,
• 8:46
  and it turns out never failing. looks identical
• 8:49
  to never going away. It is the ultimate victim
• 8:51
  of its own success. So if nature's microbes don't
• 8:54
  have the biological scissors to break these synthetic
• 8:58
  bonds, what is actually happening to the plastic
• 9:01
  we see out in the world? Well... Because I'll
• 9:04
  admit, there is a powerful illusion of vanishing
• 9:06
  plastic. Like, when I see a plastic bottle on
• 9:08
  the beach one year and the next year it's gone,
• 9:10
  my brain wants to assume nature somehow took
• 9:13
  care of it. It didn't actually disappear, did
• 9:15
  it? It's a comforting thought, but unfortunately,
• 9:17
  no, the bottle didn't disappear. It just shattered.
• 9:19
  Shattered. Yeah. Over time, prolonged exposure
• 9:23
  to ultraviolet sunlight and the mechanical pounding
• 9:26
  of ocean waves or wind cause that tough plastic
• 9:29
  to become brittle. And it starts to break apart
• 9:32
  into smaller and smaller pieces until you are
• 9:34
  left with microplastics. How small are these
• 9:37
  fragments getting? The standard definition is
• 9:40
  any plastic fragment smaller than a grain of
• 9:42
  rice. Wow. Okay. But the physical weathering
• 9:44
  process doesn't stop there. They continue to
• 9:47
  shatter down to microscopic and even nanoscopic
• 9:51
  specks that are completely invisible to the naked
• 9:53
  human eye. Because they are that small and incredibly
• 9:56
  light. They must be highly mobile. Extremely
• 9:59
  mobile. They are transported by wind and ocean
• 10:02
  currents to literally every corner of the globe.
• 10:05
  Scientists have found microplastics settled in
• 10:08
  the sediment at the bottom of the Mariana Trench,
• 10:10
  the deepest point in the ocean. That's unbelievable.
• 10:13
  They are frozen into Arctic sea ice. They are
• 10:15
  dispersed throughout the agricultural soil where
• 10:18
  we grow our food. And they are frequently detected
• 10:20
  in drinking water. So unsurprisingly, they have
• 10:23
  infiltrated the bodies of animals throughout
• 10:25
  the global food chain. Yes, exactly. And our
• 10:28
  sources point out that this includes human bodies
• 10:30
  as well. But I want to tread carefully here because
• 10:33
  hearing that we are ingesting microplastics can
• 10:36
  instantly cause a lot of panic. Oh, for sure.
• 10:38
  How do our sources frame this specific issue?
• 10:42
  The source material is very deliberate. in taking
• 10:45
  an objective data driven stance. Right. It is
• 10:48
  a definitively established fact that microplastics
• 10:51
  are widespread in the environment and that humans
• 10:54
  are ingesting and inhaling them. That part is
• 10:57
  not up for debate. OK. However, the specific
• 11:00
  medical consequences of that exposure are still
• 11:03
  under intense scientific investigation. So the
• 11:06
  health impacts are simply not a settled verdict
• 11:08
  in the medical community yet. Correct. We shouldn't
• 11:10
  dismiss the reality of it, but we also shouldn't
• 11:12
  declare the sky is falling. based on assumptions.
• 11:15
  Precisely the point the text makes. It is a serious
• 11:18
  concern requiring rigorous, active study. Stating
• 11:21
  the facts plainly without premature alarmism
• 11:23
  is the most responsible way to view the current
• 11:26
  science. I completely agree. Knowing all of this,
• 11:29
  that the chemical chains last practically forever,
• 11:32
  and that physical weathering just shatters them
• 11:34
  into invasive little specks, brings up a massive
• 11:37
  frustration. I bet I know what it is. I feel
• 11:40
  this every time I take out the recycling. I mean,
• 11:42
  wait a minute. I meticulously washed my takeout
• 11:45
  containers and put them in the blue bin. Aren't
• 11:48
  those triangles a promise that this is being
• 11:50
  taken care of? Yeah, that's a common misconception.
• 11:54
  Recycling is a real and worthwhile process, but
• 11:57
  the sources are very clear that it is far from
• 11:59
  a magical solution. Why not? The reality of processing
• 12:03
  synthetic polymers is incredibly complex, starting
• 12:07
  with the physical sorting. I always assumed they
• 12:09
  just dumped all the blue bins into a giant vat,
• 12:12
  melted it all down and molded new plastic. Why
• 12:15
  can't we do that? Because of those fundamentally
• 12:17
  different chemical architectures we discussed
• 12:19
  earlier. Oh, right. Different plastics have different
• 12:21
  melting points. And more importantly, their molecular
• 12:24
  structures can actually repel one another. Yeah.
• 12:28
  Trying to melt a water bottle and a yogurt tub
• 12:30
  together is chemically similar to trying to blend
• 12:33
  oil and water. Wow, okay. If you mix them in
• 12:36
  a melting pot, they don't form a unified, strong
• 12:39
  new material. They form a structurally weak,
• 12:42
  useless hybrid that just crumbles. So sorting
• 12:46
  them perfectly is a non -negotiable step. Absolutely.
• 12:49
  Which sounds labor -intensive and really expensive.
• 12:52
  It is. But let's say they sort it perfectly.
• 12:54
  Yeah. I'm assuming this isn't like melting down
• 12:57
  an aluminum can, which you can do a million times.
• 12:59
  Right. If these plastics are just long chains
• 13:01
  of beads, does the intense heat of melting them
• 13:05
  somehow damage the chains themselves? You've
• 13:07
  hit on the most significant physical limitation
• 13:10
  of plastic recycling. Heat and mechanical stress
• 13:13
  act like physical scissors on those polymers.
• 13:15
  Oh, no. Yeah. Every time you melt a piece of
• 13:18
  plastic down to remake it, the thermal energy
• 13:21
  severs some of the carbon bonds. Long chains
• 13:25
  get shorter and shorter. And shorter chains mean
• 13:27
  a weaker material. Yes. The recycled material
• 13:30
  is invariably of a lower structural quality than
• 13:33
  the virgin plastic. So it's degrading. Exactly.
• 13:36
  You can only recycle a specific piece of plastic
• 13:39
  a handful of times before the chains are so degraded
• 13:42
  that the material is virtually useless. So it
• 13:44
  is not a closed, incident loop. It is a downward
• 13:47
  spiral. A downward spiral, yes. And when you
• 13:50
  combine that downward spiral of quality with
• 13:52
  the cost of collecting it, washing away the food
• 13:55
  residue, removing the labels, and paying for
• 13:57
  that intensive sorting process... The economics
• 14:00
  must be brutal. The financial reality is the
• 14:03
  final barrier here. The raw ingredient for brand
• 14:06
  new plastic is crude oil. And that's heavily
• 14:10
  subsidized and often incredibly cheap to source.
• 14:13
  From a pure manufacturing standpoint, it is almost
• 14:15
  always cheaper for a company to buy high -quality
• 14:18
  virgin plastic than to buy degraded, expensive
• 14:21
  recycled plastic. That paints a pretty clear
• 14:23
  picture of why only a tiny fraction of global
• 14:25
  plastic ever actually gets recycled. Leaving
• 14:28
  the vast majority to be buried in landfills,
• 14:30
  burned, or left to weather into microplastics.
• 14:33
  So what does this all mean for us? If recycling
• 14:35
  can't save us on its own, Are we just doomed
• 14:38
  to drown in our own invention? Well, the scientific
• 14:40
  consensus points toward actionable hope, but
• 14:43
  it demands acknowledging that there is no single
• 14:46
  silver bullet. Okay. The crisis requires a woven
• 14:49
  combination of several different approaches.
• 14:52
  If we have to rethink our entire approach, the
• 14:55
  most obvious starting point seems to be just
• 14:57
  making less of the stuff to begin with. Yes.
• 14:59
  We have to stop the bathtub from overflowing
• 15:02
  before we start worrying about how to drain it.
• 15:04
  Reducing production at the source, particularly
• 15:06
  for single -use plastics that we use for five
• 15:09
  minutes and throw away forever, is the most immediate
• 15:12
  and impactful intervention. Because if we don't
• 15:14
  synthesize the polymer, we don't have to manage
• 15:17
  its centuries -long afterlife. Precisely. But
• 15:19
  for the products that genuinely need to be plastic
• 15:21
  -like medical equipment or specialized food storage,
• 15:24
  we clearly need a better design strategy. We
• 15:27
  do. If sorting is the bottleneck of recycling,
• 15:30
  shouldn't we just standardize what we make? That
• 15:32
  is exactly the second approach. Designing products
• 15:35
  to be genuinely recyclable means abandoning complex,
• 15:39
  multilayered plastics. Just keeping it simple.
• 15:42
  Right. If industries agreed to stick to just
• 15:45
  two or three standardized types of plastic, the
• 15:48
  sorting nightmare at the recycling plant becomes
• 15:50
  vastly more manageable. And the economics of
• 15:53
  recycling improve dramatically. Exactly. What
• 15:56
  about the chemists who got us into this? Are
• 15:57
  they developing polymers that aren't quite so
• 16:00
  indestructible? Oh. Chemical engineering is a
• 16:03
  huge part of the proposed solution. Researchers
• 16:06
  are actively developing next generation synthetic
• 16:09
  plastics engineered with intentional weak links
• 16:12
  in their carbon backbones. Weak links. Yeah.
• 16:14
  The goal is a material that retains its strength
• 16:17
  on the shelf, but is specifically designed to
• 16:19
  break apart safely and rapidly once exposed to
• 16:22
  environmental elements. Like specific wavelength
• 16:24
  of sunlight or soil moisture. You got it. OK,
• 16:27
  that handles future plastic. But what about the
• 16:30
  billions of tons already? sitting in landfills
• 16:32
  and oceans? Are we just waiting on nature to
• 16:34
  eventually catch up? Actually, we are actively
• 16:37
  trying to give nature a push. Ah, so? Remember
• 16:40
  how we discussed that natural microbes lack the
• 16:42
  enzymes to cut synthetic bonds? Right, the biological
• 16:45
  scissors. Well, biologists are currently scouring
• 16:48
  the globe for mutated microbes that might have
• 16:50
  started figuring it out. And they have found
• 16:52
  some early promising candidates. Wait, really?
• 16:55
  Yeah. There are certain bacteria discovered near
• 16:57
  recycling plants that have evolved primitive
• 17:00
  biological scissors capable of slowly digesting
• 17:03
  specific types of plastic. That sounds incredible.
• 17:06
  But is it actually scalable or is it just a neat
• 17:10
  lab trick? The sources emphasize tempering our
• 17:12
  expectations here. While these enzymes function
• 17:16
  in a controlled lab setting, scaling that biological
• 17:18
  process up to handle millions of tons of dispersed
• 17:22
  global waste is a colossal engineering challenge.
• 17:26
  So it remains very early stage science. Exactly.
• 17:28
  So while we wait for chemical weak links and
• 17:31
  plastic eating bacteria to mature, the final
• 17:34
  piece of the puzzle just has to be keeping the
• 17:36
  trash we have out of the natural environment.
• 17:38
  Improving global waste collection infrastructure
• 17:40
  is vital. In many developing regions, formal
• 17:43
  garbage collection simply doesn't exist. Which
• 17:45
  leads directly to plastic waste washing straight
• 17:47
  into river systems and out to sea. Right. Building
• 17:50
  the infrastructure to contain the waste we already
• 17:52
  generate is a massive part of the immediate solution.
• 17:56
  It really requires pulling every lever simultaneously.
• 17:59
  It does. Use less, standardize our designs, engineer
• 18:02
  smarter materials, hunt for biological workarounds,
• 18:06
  and manage our physical trash better. None of
• 18:09
  these solves the problem entirely on its own.
• 18:11
  But together, they represent a pragmatic path
• 18:14
  forward. Right. It allows us to retain the undeniable
• 18:18
  technological and medical benefits of this material
• 18:20
  without being completely overwhelmed by its durability.
• 18:24
  It really is the ultimate story of an unforeseen
• 18:26
  tradeoff. We spent the last century being incredibly
• 18:30
  innovative. We did. We figured out how to string
• 18:32
  molecules together to invent a material that
• 18:35
  was affordable, adaptable, and a massive driver
• 18:38
  of human progress. But our design parameter was
• 18:41
  purely focused on making it last. We learn the
• 18:44
  hard way that a thing that never wears out also
• 18:46
  never goes away. Viewing plastics not just as
• 18:49
  everyday trash, but as polymers, as those stubborn
• 18:53
  microscopic chains of repeating units engineered
• 18:55
  not to fail, is the vital first step towards
• 18:59
  solving the problem. Because you cannot... Effectively
• 19:02
  manage what you don't fundamentally understand.
• 19:05
  Precisely. Drawing on everything our sources
• 19:07
  told us today about the sheer, stubborn durability
• 19:10
  of these synthetic chains, it leaves me with
• 19:12
  one wild thought. Oh, yeah. What's that? Think
• 19:15
  about the physical history of the Earth. If human
• 19:17
  civilization were to vanish tomorrow, our grandest
• 19:20
  architecture would eventually crumble. Sure.
• 19:23
  Steel rusts away. Concrete erodes to dust. Paper
• 19:26
  and wood rot back into the soil. But those synthetic,
• 19:29
  classical chains? they will stubbornly persist.
• 19:32
  It creates a highly unique geological footprint.
• 19:35
  Imagine a geologist, perhaps a completely different
• 19:38
  evolved species, digging through the Earth's
• 19:40
  crust a million years now. Oh, wow. What are
• 19:42
  they going to think when they hit our era? And
• 19:45
  instead of finding dinosaur bones or stone tools,
• 19:47
  they find an entire distinct geological layer
• 19:50
  made out of compressed soda bottle caps, microscopic
• 19:53
  carpet fibers, and perfectly preserved faded
• 19:57
  toy building blocks. A permanent synthetic layer
• 20:00
  woven into the history of the planet itself.
• 20:02
  It is an astonishing legacy to picture. Thank
• 20:05
  you so much for joining us on this deep dive.
• 20:07
  Thanks for having me. The next time you pick
• 20:09
  up a plastic fork or grocery bag, I hope you
• 20:12
  see the microscopic chains holding it all together
• 20:14
  just a little bit differently. Keep questioning
• 20:16
  the world around you, and we'll see you next
• 20:18
  time.