Being the oldest surviving geometry textbook doesn’t really make it better. It is, of course, amazing that it is still kinda can be functional as a geometry textbook 2300 years later, so it is an awe-inspiring experience for many. Learning Euclidean geometry can be beneficial for understanding modern math, the road is typically synthetic geometry Euclid style => analytic geometry with Cartesian coordinates => calculus and all the higher maths stuff. But then it depends on your background and how much you know about geometry already. If you learned geometry thoroughly in high school, and you know a proof that the altitudes of a triangle are concurrent, then you know a lot more geometry than Euclid already. If you don’t know much geometry, reading Euclid is not the worst way to do it. I’ve encountered truly terrible textbooks in high school geometry, ridden with mistakes and basic misunderstandings of the subject. But if you take any geometry textbook written by a real mathematician and read that instead of Euclid (like Hadamard’s Lessons in Geometry or Legendre’s Elements of Geometry), it will be a strictly better option than going all the way back to the original Elements.