I’m sure you have heard the famous proverb, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” But, I doubt you have ever thought closely enough about it to realize that it is indeed an unrealistic comparison. After much exhaustive research and contemplation I have finally concluded that a bird in the hand is not worth two in the bush.

My reasoning behind this ground breaking new realization is very logical. First of all, to say that a bird in the hand (a bird that you have) is equivalent in value to two in a bush implies that of the two birds, you would be able to catch one. This is a highly unrealistic assumption, as anyone who has tried to approach a wild bird would know. Birds have an uncanny knack for sensing a hostile presence sneaking up on them. It is almost impossible to get within arm’s reach of a bird without it noticing you and flying away. Furthermore, birds have great flock awareness. As soon as one bird notices a danger, the others are uncannily alerted in a fraction of a second. So, rather than additional birds improving your chance of catching one, they actually decrease your chances, as each added bird acts as an additional lookout for trouble.

Now, some people might say, “What if you used a net?” My response to this would be that the proverb doesn’t say, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, if you have a net.” Secondly, if you were able to get close enough with a net to catch one of the birds, what’s to stop you from catching the other one. In this case, a bird in the hand would equal a bird in the bush, rendering the saying useless.

As mentioned in the second paragraph, the chances of catching a bird decrease with each successive bird because each bird increases the likelihood of you being detected. By extension, this means that there could be an infinite amount of birds, and they would still not be worth as much as one in the hand.