First, you are treating Joy and Suffering asymmetrically.
You don't take anything with you. Your Suffering and your Joy are gone.
Using Joy as a proxy term for "anything good" and Suffering as "anything bad", we get:
During your life, more Joy is better than less Joy. So you seek Joy. All else being equal, living for more gets you more Joy.
During your life, less Suffering is better than more Suffering. So you seek to avoid Suffering. All else being equal, living for less gets you less Suffering.
These are symmetrical arguments. In order to claim "life is bad" you must break this symmetry. Maybe as a being, you are incapable of experiencing Joy, and what Joy it experiences is merely a reduction in Suffering. Such a being may decide it wants to end its existence.
Second, you are implicitly placing your unit of moral decision on the individual. A culture doesn't end with the death of an individual, there is no known hard limit (just a probabilistic one) on the end of human culture as a whole. From the "perspective" of human culture, existence beyond the end of a human has value.
The same holds for a species; from the "perspective" of the species, the suffering of an instance of the species is unimportant.
Beings that strive for an early death and don't reproduce don't perpetuate their species, so beings that live long enough to reproduce are those that exist, assuming reproduction with any amount of fidelity.
That species may become extinct -- almost every species has -- but every species around today are ones that came from other species and have not yet gone extinct.
You can continue to recurse upwards -- from individual, to family, to herd, to species, to genus, to life itself. As far as we can tell, life is required to ask the question "why should we keep existing", so the anthropic principle means that life that continues begats genuses that continue that begats species that continue that begats herds that continue that begats family that continues that begats individuals that continue, and only if such a chain exists and sustains long enough and in ways that end with intelligence will something exist that asks "why exist instead of not exist".
Why exist instead of not exist? Because you are asking that question.
Only beings with a recursive stack nearly infinitely deep of things existing instead of not existing can manage the complexity to ask that question.
This stretches down to the laws of physics having a universe existing more than an eye-blink, with chemistry-like processes that have time to act, with an arrow of time, and a myriad of other things required for that question to be stated.
It isn't surprising that, given that question is asked, the answer is "it is a habit", in that everything around such a question asker is busy existing instead of not existing, and this pattern of existing instead of not existing has been repeated down to the very bones of the physics that being is embedded in.
Third, the choice to continue to exist or not is asymmetric. Once you have chosen to not exist, at our current level of understanding, that is the end. If you choose to continue to exist, it is usually very easy to change that decision (there are extreme cases where it gets difficult, and people often prepare and avoid those). So a being concerned about possibly boundless suffering and hoping for boundless joy can continue to explore reality, and when it finds suffering and expectation of same to grow too large, and future expectation of joy to collapse, it can stop existing.