Can you please be so kind to correct me this little text? Native English Speakers ONLY! PLEASE! You'll find the text in the link I provided. Thanks in advance for your help!

I'll add the text in a comment too:

For Kids of Today Chicken Has Six Legs
or
For Kids of Today Chickens Have Six Legs
or
For Today's Kids (...)?

Several tens of years ago to the grandson to a friend of mine was assigned a composition (I think it's better “was asked to write a composition” but I'm not so sure about that) as an homework assignment that sounded more or less in this way: “Talk about your cat”. And how can this be done? The kid was not allowed, despite his pleas and cries, to keep pets (and in (or within?) the same classification must fall, maybe, his little schoolmates, given that they never let him go outside the house). Supplied with paper and pen, gazen (the original is: guardato a vista that means more or less “to check on someone” or “to keep an eye or someone”) by his mother showing herself on the balcony (or who was showing herself on the balcony?), the kid took to the street and he jotted down the features of an alley cat which was walking around.What came out a composition which fairly related the fact that his cat had three legs, one hear, an half-eaten tail, and was covered with mange. These were the things he had seen and these were the things he described. In his family that homework was a reason for big laughs for a long time (I realize that this sounds VERY bad but I cannot do better ;_; ). “The good old days!”, I happened to exclaim nowadays (in these days? The original was NOW, but I think it is wrong here with a past tense). Because that kid, after all, did a realistic portrait as we used to say in the past, that is referring to nature, still tied to the reality. But it appears to be more and more clear how, day after day, the discrepancy between the daily life in the city and the nature would become not only dramatic, but even tragic. There is an example of this last period (the original was “of these hours” but I'm not sure if it is correct in English) that seems terrifying to me. A specialized agency has conducted (or conducted or simply found out?) a survey among children from Rome (the original is Roman children but it sounded a little bit strange to me) to know (understand?) whether they knew (I'd like to avoid the repetition, but I cannot find any suitable synonym! Moreover I'm not sure if the tense is okay) how a chicken is made. Well, the children, I think between 3 and 8 years, have principally replied that the chicken does not exist in nature, but it is produced in proper factories, in other words that it is an artificial being (the original is: artificial without being). It is so artificial that the factory brings out two types on the market: raw chicken (for the gourmands (the original was nifty people) who want perhaps a chasseur chicken) and roast chicken.
There is a great uncertainty among childrens about the number of legs that every chicken has, there is someone who says (my alternative version is: someone says) that they have six of it whereas (the original was “and”) someone else swears over and over again that they have eight of it. Anyway only one of them has declared that the chicken has two legs, but he has been overwhelmed with digs and cutting remarks. Then the uncertainty has reigned over the number of wings (I translated litterally but I'm not sure if you have this expression in English): however the children came to the common conclusion that ina chicken the number of wings is always much lesser than the leg's, in fact one bring to the table more legs than wings. But the tragedy (allow me to call it so without a shadow of irony) had begun (or simply began?) to show its face some years before when some children, living in town as the others above (it must be clear that I'm referring to the ones who took the survey!), had included in a list of fishes, the “fish-finger”. I am writing these lines (the original uses the simple present), and trust me, I am in a cold sweat because, you know (the original is: you see, but again... I don't know if it's correct), this is a bottomless abyss. Do you want to make a beat? I am ready to give right now the answer of the kids if the investigation would be undertaken again just in about ten years: “The fish is a virtual animal which navigates in the virtual waters of Internet. To (or in order to?) flush it out from its site the formula is: wwwzyfishwzyx”. I feel scared: the idea that a child could think that a living being is manufactured by a machine (or a machinery?) symbolizes, (the original is: represents) from my point of view, (the original is: to my eyes) the corruption, the worst distortion that could be commited (or simply made?) towards a child's brain. Because in this way, besides that, we slowly, but surely get him used for the worst. What kind of worst (the original is: what worst?)? In twenty years, when another grandfather (not me, since, in the meanwhile I will have kicked the bucket) will ask to his grandson the name of his schoolmates, the reply will be: “Antonio, Antonio, Antonio, Antonio?”... “How come? Are they called in the same way?” and the grandson, surprised by that question: “But they are clones, grandpa!”