Yes I think that innovation is an important factor for alt-coins, but that doesn't mean they do not have a place. And most importantly they are no more a pump&dump scheme than BTC already is.
There are some coins with malicious features like pre-mine, taxes or else (Solidcoin, Freicoin, ...) which should be avoided, but other than that they have their place, if only for a short time.
I get the point of things like feathercoin, china coin, ru coin,.. aren't particularly useful if they do not include any new unique featureset. They are often short lived see IXcoin and I0Coin but that doesn't mean they have to.
I may have to think about this more, but I suppose my contention is with your implied assertion that the direct clone alts are identical to bitcoin in terms of their value to humanity (which I'm getting from your statement that "they are no more a pump&dump scheme than BTC already is."). I contend that the first coin to offer a certain featureset adds value to humanity, while the next one with that exact featureset adds so little value that it can be reasonably approximated as adding no value. This is pretty much because the first one to provide the featureset gets the network effect and therefore imparts the value.
There's perhaps an argument for diversification and redundancy, though if coin B is a direct clone of coin A, they'll have exactly the same vulnerabilities....the only "backup" function might be with respect to the people who are developing one versus the other...