Not a direct answer, but I want to point out that if you’re considering a technology that will help improve poor people’s lives, you must also consider that technology is prone to the same issues that caused the wealth disparity in the first place. Namely, that only rich people can afford new technologies. Suppose if we really are able to edit human genes to let people drink salt water. Would poor people (the people who may actually need this technology) be able to afford it? Or will it end up just becoming a gimmick for rich people?
As others have pointed out, there’s really no need to be able to drink salt water, since we already have the technology to desalinate water. It’s only that poorer areas don’t have the funding to build desalination plants. You can start to see that it’s the same issue as what I said above - there’s a new technology that would theoretically help poor areas, but then it ends up not benefiting poor people because they can’t afford the technology.
All of this is not to say that new technology is bad. It’s simply that we already have solutions for a lot of societal issues, and the reason we still have those problems is simply because we as a society don’t care enough to distribute the benefits of those solutions fairly