When I read the title of Susan Sprecher's letter to the editor Monday, "Benefits of Cloning People," I was infused with such thoughts as being able to selectively clone specific organs for transplant or other useful applications of the science. Unfortunately, upon reading the article I was merely disappointed with a series of poorly researched and amoral arguments, which is actually rather frightening considering the implications of the technology in question.

Among the most offensive and misguided of Sprecher's theories is that "human races are cultural artifacts with aesthetic function." Excuse me? A person is not a piece of art to be enjoyed in a gallery! A person, by definition, is neither an artifact nor an aesthetic object. I hesitate to say this, but this mode of thought seems to be rather reminiscent of the type of Social Darwinism that led to the "justification" of the Jewish Holocaust and the communist genocides by their perpetrators. People are not things, and are not to be treated (or even referred to) as such.

Secondly, she compares human races to extinct and endangered species of animals. Just in case the fact had eluded anyone else, the human race is not an endangered species: we are the reason there are so many endangered species today!

Sprecher also seems to think that because we make attempts to preserve the genetic information and biodiversity of plants and animals, we should make an attempt to do so for humans as well. I'm not sure if she knows this, but the primary reason that efforts like these are made is not because people think it's great to have the genotype of 4,000 different varieties of corn on hand for their aesthetic value. The reason is for the genetic research benefits it offers: if someone finds a variety of corn that's resistant to a disease plaguing another area, genetic engineers can (given enough time) locate and transplant the genes necessary to immunize the plants without sacrificing productivity. With a little understanding of why genetic conservation takes place, it is hard to imagine exactly what it has to do with the preservation of biological artwork.

By far the most disturbing hypothesis she puts forth, however, is that human races should be "preserved" as if they were breeds of livestock. Just because the gene pool is drying up is no reason to run to the lab and order up a few hundred more people. Did she ever stop to think whether or not the few remaining members of that race (or their descendants) would desire or approve of the cloning of their ancestors and their own selves for any of these purposes?

Even if such a practice were allowed, would any of you want to look at that first full-blooded Kalahari Bushman off the cloning line and tell him, "Sorry son, you're not here for any particularly good reason, we just thought you'd make a lovely piece of educational artwork."

• All the wrong reasons