I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying the use of Greek letters is a good thing, and that we need more of them, not less? Or do you mean that all symbols are equally easy to learn for beginners, whether they're English or Greek or Chinese or abstract? Or do you mean that we should do away with symbols that don't mean anything and use real language to describe math instead?

The symbols we use in math aren't to be confused with the ideas, they are shorthand. Ideas and symbols are independent, and we still have to explain what Greek letters do using English anyway. We use Greek letters for convenience, not for expressive power. Writing "∫ x ∂x" is only faster and more compact than writing "The integral of the equation x over x", it is not an improvement of the concept, right?

Use of symbols is the act of trying to compress everything into a smaller set, not the other way around.

For the modern audience, the use of Greek letters may hamper learning because the symbols are unfamiliar and foreign looking. It takes cognitive effort to learn the Greek letters in addition to the cognitive effort to learn the mathematical ideas. What if we could remove the cognitive effort on letters, and focus on the pure math ideas? What if the Greek letters are a speed bump to learning? That we use ∑ for sum and ∆ for change are arbitrary - canonical, but completely arbitrary. History could have decided that a circle was the integral symbol, or the capital letter I. Maybe math would be easier to learn if we switch to capital letter I.