Substitute the phrase economic demand or as Adam Smith termed it, effectual demand, for just "demand".
(I'm not saying this because I agree with economics, necessarily, I'm just trying to clarify the distinction.)
The problem is that economics has a domain-specific set of definitions and terms, many of which have similar but meaningfully different definitions in common usage. Or in other scientific disciplines (or if you prefer: in scientific disciplines). So an economist and a biologist might see a different meaning for "demand" when talking about food needs of an individual, where the biologist is looking at metabolic requirements for calories, macro-, and micro-nutrients, and an economist is interested in market prices and ability to pay.
In the case of the Jevons Paradox, the market price of a service that's been made more efficient effectively falls. This exposes more effectual demand, that is, consumers with a capability to pay that market rate, for the good. Hence the total quantity demanded increases.
This actually isn't a shift in demand, as an economist would see it, but a shift in the supply curve (or supply function). The demand function itself, what economists call "demand", remains unchanged, but the quantity demanded increases. Again, as a result in the supply shift.
Confusing at first, yes. But this part of economics, usually, actually makes sense.
Interestingly, your definition of “everyday demand” is close to the concept of demand in economics, and your definition of “economic demand” is exactly the concept in economics of “quantity demanded” (the quantity coordinate of the point on the demand curve with a particular price coordinate.)
Very interesting. That means my first comment makes sense.
Because it would mean economic/everyday demand is very inelastic with respect to price. If I want world peace, a mansion in the hamptons, my own tropical island, that want will remain the same pretty much the same from day to day.
(I'm not saying this because I agree with economics, necessarily, I'm just trying to clarify the distinction.)
The problem is that economics has a domain-specific set of definitions and terms, many of which have similar but meaningfully different definitions in common usage. Or in other scientific disciplines (or if you prefer: in scientific disciplines). So an economist and a biologist might see a different meaning for "demand" when talking about food needs of an individual, where the biologist is looking at metabolic requirements for calories, macro-, and micro-nutrients, and an economist is interested in market prices and ability to pay.
In the case of the Jevons Paradox, the market price of a service that's been made more efficient effectively falls. This exposes more effectual demand, that is, consumers with a capability to pay that market rate, for the good. Hence the total quantity demanded increases.
This actually isn't a shift in demand, as an economist would see it, but a shift in the supply curve (or supply function). The demand function itself, what economists call "demand", remains unchanged, but the quantity demanded increases. Again, as a result in the supply shift.
Confusing at first, yes. But this part of economics, usually, actually makes sense.